<?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 (12) TMI 304 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335659</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the addition under section 50C did not warrant penalty as there was no evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Emphasizing that the deeming provisions of section 50C did not imply wrongdoing, the Tribunal relied on judicial precedents and principles to support its decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2016 16:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 304 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335659</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the addition under section 50C did not warrant penalty as there was no evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Emphasizing that the deeming provisions of section 50C did not imply wrongdoing, the Tribunal relied on judicial precedents and principles to support its decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335659</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>