<?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 (9) TMI 574 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347817</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, deleting penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Penalties were deemed unjustified as trading additions were estimated without clear evidence of concealment. The Tribunal stressed the need for proof of mens rea in penalty proceedings, emphasizing penalties cannot be solely based on estimates. The decision was consistent across all appeals, resulting in the deletion of penalties for the relevant assessment years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Dec 2017 14:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488947" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 574 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347817</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, deleting penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Penalties were deemed unjustified as trading additions were estimated without clear evidence of concealment. The Tribunal stressed the need for proof of mens rea in penalty proceedings, emphasizing penalties cannot be solely based on estimates. The decision was consistent across all appeals, resulting in the deletion of penalties for the relevant assessment years.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>