<?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 (8) TMI 387 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346329</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 271AAA was deleted because no specific query was put to the assessee requiring it to explain the manner in which the undisclosed income surrendered during search was derived. The appellate authorities held that the jurisdictional precondition for invoking the provision was not satisfied, and the High Court found that view plausible and not perverse. The deletion of penalty was therefore upheld, and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2017 11:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485080" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 387 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346329</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 271AAA was deleted because no specific query was put to the assessee requiring it to explain the manner in which the undisclosed income surrendered during search was derived. The appellate authorities held that the jurisdictional precondition for invoking the provision was not satisfied, and the High Court found that view plausible and not perverse. The deletion of penalty was therefore upheld, and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346329</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>