<?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>1967 (8) TMI 5 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6962</link>
    <description>In concealment penalty proceedings, rejection of the assessee&#039;s explanation in assessment proceedings does not by itself establish concealment under section 271(1)(c). The penalty authority must record an express finding, supported by material, that the explanation was false and that deliberate concealment was proved. As no such clear finding was recorded by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal, the penalty could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2009 12:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (8) TMI 5 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6962</link>
      <description>In concealment penalty proceedings, rejection of the assessee&#039;s explanation in assessment proceedings does not by itself establish concealment under section 271(1)(c). The penalty authority must record an express finding, supported by material, that the explanation was false and that deliberate concealment was proved. As no such clear finding was recorded by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal, the penalty could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6962</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>