<?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 607 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335962</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty of Rs. 29,05,775/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was unjustified as it was based on estimated additions without concrete evidence of concealment. The penalty was deleted, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed on 25/11/2016. The Tribunal emphasized that penalties cannot be levied solely on estimated additions without proof of deliberate concealment or inaccuracy, referencing past case laws.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:19:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451372" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 607 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335962</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty of Rs. 29,05,775/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was unjustified as it was based on estimated additions without concrete evidence of concealment. The penalty was deleted, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed on 25/11/2016. The Tribunal emphasized that penalties cannot be levied solely on estimated additions without proof of deliberate concealment or inaccuracy, referencing past case laws.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335962</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>