<?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 (7) TMI 572 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345460</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, ruling in favor of the assessee in both appeals. The Tribunal found that the penalty was unjustified due to the lack of concrete evidence supporting intentional concealment of income by the assessee. The decision was based on the adhoc nature of the additions made during assessment and the failure of the department to establish concealment conclusively.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:25:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=481675" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 572 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345460</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, ruling in favor of the assessee in both appeals. The Tribunal found that the penalty was unjustified due to the lack of concrete evidence supporting intentional concealment of income by the assessee. The decision was based on the adhoc nature of the additions made during assessment and the failure of the department to establish concealment conclusively.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345460</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>