<?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 (9) TMI 1040 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180300</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was not justified as the assessee&#039;s claim for depreciation on assets acquired with capital subsidy, though unsustainable, did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty, allowing the appeal of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:27:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 1040 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180300</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was not justified as the assessee&#039;s claim for depreciation on assets acquired with capital subsidy, though unsustainable, did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty, allowing the appeal of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180300</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>