<?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>2017 (3) TMI 974 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340471</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the Assessee&#039;s appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was confirmed only for the salary income addition, emphasizing the requirement for clear evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars to justify penalties. The Tribunal found that while some additions lacked evidence, the penalty was upheld for the unexplained salary income. The decision was rendered on 21st March 2017 in Ahmedabad.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:12:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=462017" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 974 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340471</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the Assessee&#039;s appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was confirmed only for the salary income addition, emphasizing the requirement for clear evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars to justify penalties. The Tribunal found that while some additions lacked evidence, the penalty was upheld for the unexplained salary income. The decision was rendered on 21st March 2017 in Ahmedabad.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>