<?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 658 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347901</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, reversing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)&#039;s decision to delete the penalty. The Tribunal found that the assessee&#039;s disclosure of unexplained income was not voluntary but made under the fear of penalty or other proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that voluntary surrender of income after detection of untruthfulness does not exempt from penalty provisions. The assessee failed to rebut the presumption of concealment, leading to the penalty being upheld. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was allowed, and the penalty order was upheld under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2017 08:19:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489115" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 658 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347901</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, reversing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)&#039;s decision to delete the penalty. The Tribunal found that the assessee&#039;s disclosure of unexplained income was not voluntary but made under the fear of penalty or other proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that voluntary surrender of income after detection of untruthfulness does not exempt from penalty provisions. The assessee failed to rebut the presumption of concealment, leading to the penalty being upheld. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was allowed, and the penalty order was upheld under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347901</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>