<?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>1995 (9) TMI 381 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182767</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable because the Tribunal, on appreciation of the material, found as a matter of fact that the assessee had neither concealed income nor furnished inaccurate particulars. That factual finding justified cancellation of the penalty, and interference was not warranted where no concealment or inaccuracy was established. The reference was answered against the Revenue and the deletion of penalty was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 May 2016 11:43:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428776" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 381 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182767</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable because the Tribunal, on appreciation of the material, found as a matter of fact that the assessee had neither concealed income nor furnished inaccurate particulars. That factual finding justified cancellation of the penalty, and interference was not warranted where no concealment or inaccuracy was established. The reference was answered against the Revenue and the deletion of penalty was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182767</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>