<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (12) TMI 539 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240874</link>
    <description>The appeal challenging additions under section 50C of the Act and related disallowances, as well as penalties under section 271(1)(C) of the Act, was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer&#039;s actions, finding the assessee failed to demonstrate why the provisions of section 50C were not applicable. However, in a separate appeal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the penalty under section 271(1)(C), directing its deletion due to the absence of concealment of income particulars.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2013 07:13:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339110" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (12) TMI 539 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240874</link>
      <description>The appeal challenging additions under section 50C of the Act and related disallowances, as well as penalties under section 271(1)(C) of the Act, was dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer&#039;s actions, finding the assessee failed to demonstrate why the provisions of section 50C were not applicable. However, in a separate appeal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the penalty under section 271(1)(C), directing its deletion due to the absence of concealment of income particulars.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>