<?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 961 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345849</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal, affirming that the sum received by the Assessee was debatable as a capital or revenue receipt. The court found no deliberate concealment, invalidating the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The court also ruled that the questions raised by the Revenue were not substantial questions of law, leading to the appeal&#039;s dismissal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=483328" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 961 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345849</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal, affirming that the sum received by the Assessee was debatable as a capital or revenue receipt. The court found no deliberate concealment, invalidating the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The court also ruled that the questions raised by the Revenue were not substantial questions of law, leading to the appeal&#039;s dismissal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>