<?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 (8) TMI 1076 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191666</link>
    <description>The penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 were challenged by the assessee. The penalties were related to additional income declared post-search, including unexplained credits and fictitious gifts. The appellate tribunal found that the penalties were not justified as the income declared in response to notice under section 153A was not based on any items found during the search. Consequently, the penalties for both years were deleted, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:26:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465676" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 1076 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191666</link>
      <description>The penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 were challenged by the assessee. The penalties were related to additional income declared post-search, including unexplained credits and fictitious gifts. The appellate tribunal found that the penalties were not justified as the income declared in response to notice under section 153A was not based on any items found during the search. Consequently, the penalties for both years were deleted, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191666</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>