<?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>2005 (9) TMI 658 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188445</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the agreement not to levy penalties based on a revised return does not prevent the Assessing Authority from imposing penalties for income concealment. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal&#039;s decision to cancel the penalty of Rs. 70,000 under Section 271(1)(c), citing legal precedents. Consequently, the High Court ruled against the assessee, upholding the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2016 12:14:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450141" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 658 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188445</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the agreement not to levy penalties based on a revised return does not prevent the Assessing Authority from imposing penalties for income concealment. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal&#039;s decision to cancel the penalty of Rs. 70,000 under Section 271(1)(c), citing legal precedents. Consequently, the High Court ruled against the assessee, upholding the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>