<?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 1715 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266440</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A) decision to delete the penalty of Rs. 10,94,116 imposed under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal emphasized that since the additions made by the AO were deleted, no penalty was leviable. The application of section 50C in determining capital gains was found inappropriate, leading to the deletion of the penalty. The interpretation that any addition under section 50C should be made in the company&#039;s hands, not individual shareholders, supported the deletion of the penalty. The balance sheet information and lack of concrete evidence for quantum additions also influenced the decision to delete the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1715 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266440</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A) decision to delete the penalty of Rs. 10,94,116 imposed under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal emphasized that since the additions made by the AO were deleted, no penalty was leviable. The application of section 50C in determining capital gains was found inappropriate, leading to the deletion of the penalty. The interpretation that any addition under section 50C should be made in the company&#039;s hands, not individual shareholders, supported the deletion of the penalty. The balance sheet information and lack of concrete evidence for quantum additions also influenced the decision to delete the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266440</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>