<?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 2498 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182898</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The penalty was deleted as the purchases made were deemed genuine, with established supplier identities and substantial supplies to various customers. The tribunal also confirmed the disallowance of loss claimed on sales of unbranded items and the subsequent penalty deletion, as the estimation of gross profit rate did not constitute inaccurate particulars of income. The tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, concluding that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to impose a penalty based on the findings of the first appellate authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 May 2016 10:03:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429227" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2498 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182898</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The penalty was deleted as the purchases made were deemed genuine, with established supplier identities and substantial supplies to various customers. The tribunal also confirmed the disallowance of loss claimed on sales of unbranded items and the subsequent penalty deletion, as the estimation of gross profit rate did not constitute inaccurate particulars of income. The tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, concluding that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to impose a penalty based on the findings of the first appellate authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182898</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>