<?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>1933 (7) TMI 15 - RANGOON HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193807</link>
    <description>Deliberate omission of commission receipts from an income-tax return was treated as furnishing false information under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code because the receipts were income that should have been disclosed. The Court rejected technical objections based on the Income-tax Act, the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act, holding that the complaint was properly instituted by the competent income-tax officer and that the relevant statements were admissible as admissions. It also held that a fine alone was inadequate for deliberate concealment of substantial taxable income, so the punishment was enhanced by adding simple imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed and the sentence increased.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 1933 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2017 14:47:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485954" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1933 (7) TMI 15 - RANGOON HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193807</link>
      <description>Deliberate omission of commission receipts from an income-tax return was treated as furnishing false information under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code because the receipts were income that should have been disclosed. The Court rejected technical objections based on the Income-tax Act, the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act, holding that the complaint was properly instituted by the competent income-tax officer and that the relevant statements were admissible as admissions. It also held that a fine alone was inadequate for deliberate concealment of substantial taxable income, so the punishment was enhanced by adding simple imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed and the sentence increased.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 1933 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>