<?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>2011 (11) TMI 658 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174815</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the order under appeal and deleting the penalty imposed. The Tribunal found that the penalty was not justified as it was solely based on the assessee&#039;s surrender without any evidence of concealment. The decision was supported by various legal precedents, including &quot;CIT v. Baroda Tin Works&quot; and &quot;CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal.&quot;</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:51:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 658 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174815</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the order under appeal and deleting the penalty imposed. The Tribunal found that the penalty was not justified as it was solely based on the assessee&#039;s surrender without any evidence of concealment. The decision was supported by various legal precedents, including &quot;CIT v. Baroda Tin Works&quot; and &quot;CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal.&quot;</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>