<?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 (6) TMI 590 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344319</link>
    <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, reinstating the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for alleged concealment of income during the assessment year 2013-14. The ITAT held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) erred in canceling the penalty, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer (AO) had recorded satisfaction of concealment. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the appeal based on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:04:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=472234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 590 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344319</link>
      <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, reinstating the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for alleged concealment of income during the assessment year 2013-14. The ITAT held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) erred in canceling the penalty, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer (AO) had recorded satisfaction of concealment. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the appeal based on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>