<?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 1762 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266487</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Court emphasized that voluntary disclosure does not absolve an assessee from penalty if concealment is proven. As no undisclosed income was detected during the survey, and the assessee voluntarily declared the income in the revised return accepted by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal found no evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars, leading to the penalty&#039;s dismissal. The appeal challenging the penalty was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose for interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:46:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1762 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266487</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Court emphasized that voluntary disclosure does not absolve an assessee from penalty if concealment is proven. As no undisclosed income was detected during the survey, and the assessee voluntarily declared the income in the revised return accepted by the Assessing Officer, the Tribunal found no evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars, leading to the penalty&#039;s dismissal. The appeal challenging the penalty was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose for interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>