<?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 (3) TMI 1158 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190242</link>
    <description>The penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 25,245, was deleted by the Judicial Member. The discrepancy in estimations made by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) led to the imposition of the penalty. The Judicial Member emphasized that concealment penalty should not be solely based on estimations, citing relevant case laws. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was deleted based on the assessment of estimations and legal precedents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2017 22:57:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1158 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190242</link>
      <description>The penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 25,245, was deleted by the Judicial Member. The discrepancy in estimations made by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) led to the imposition of the penalty. The Judicial Member emphasized that concealment penalty should not be solely based on estimations, citing relevant case laws. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was deleted based on the assessment of estimations and legal precedents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>