<?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>2012 (5) TMI 750 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191479</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the Assessee&#039;s appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for unaccounted job charges and bogus purchases. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO were based on estimates and not concrete evidence of concealment, therefore concluding that the requirements of section 271(1)(c) were not met. As a result, the penalty was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2017 14:29:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=464879" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 750 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191479</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the Assessee&#039;s appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for unaccounted job charges and bogus purchases. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the AO were based on estimates and not concrete evidence of concealment, therefore concluding that the requirements of section 271(1)(c) were not met. As a result, the penalty was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>