<?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>2015 (10) TMI 747 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265472</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals, emphasizing the absence of malafide intent in the non-disclosure of income and the genuine belief regarding the taxability of the remittance. The Tribunal&#039;s decision highlighted the unique circumstances of the case and the lack of deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, leading to the deletion of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the relevant assessment years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2015 06:12:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 747 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265472</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals, emphasizing the absence of malafide intent in the non-disclosure of income and the genuine belief regarding the taxability of the remittance. The Tribunal&#039;s decision highlighted the unique circumstances of the case and the lack of deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, leading to the deletion of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the relevant assessment years.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>