<?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>2016 (9) TMI 101 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331840</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty order imposed on the assessee for Assessment Year 2006-07. It was held that there was no deliberate concealment of income, as the assessee genuinely believed in its entitlement for exemption under the Act, despite not having the necessary registration. The Tribunal emphasized the complete disclosure of facts by the assessee and concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2016 12:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 101 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331840</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty order imposed on the assessee for Assessment Year 2006-07. It was held that there was no deliberate concealment of income, as the assessee genuinely believed in its entitlement for exemption under the Act, despite not having the necessary registration. The Tribunal emphasized the complete disclosure of facts by the assessee and concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified in this case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>