<?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>2006 (7) TMI 696 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191180</link>
    <description>Penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted because the returned income and the assessed income were both nil. On those admitted facts, no case was made out for levy of penalty, and the proposed challenge did not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal therefore failed at the admission stage.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:23:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=462290" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 696 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191180</link>
      <description>Penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted because the returned income and the assessed income were both nil. On those admitted facts, no case was made out for levy of penalty, and the proposed challenge did not raise any substantial question of law. The appeal therefore failed at the admission stage.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191180</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>