<?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>2014 (10) TMI 579 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252445</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the decision to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, finding that the respondent-assessee had provided genuine explanations for the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that there was no evidence of deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, leading to the dismissal of the revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:33:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=367320" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 579 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252445</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the decision to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, finding that the respondent-assessee had provided genuine explanations for the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that there was no evidence of deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, leading to the dismissal of the revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>