<?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>2003 (7) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10278</link>
    <description>Penalty for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) was held sustainable where the assessee had not furnished correct particulars and the income earned in the name of the concern was assessable in his hands. The authorities maintained the concealment finding on admitted facts, and the consequential penalty was upheld. The related assessment of an association of persons did not alter the position, because the finding that the firm was not genuine had attained finality and did not dilute liability for furnishing inaccurate particulars for the relevant year. The reference was answered against the assessee and the penalty was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10278</link>
      <description>Penalty for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) was held sustainable where the assessee had not furnished correct particulars and the income earned in the name of the concern was assessable in his hands. The authorities maintained the concealment finding on admitted facts, and the consequential penalty was upheld. The related assessment of an association of persons did not alter the position, because the finding that the firm was not genuine had attained finality and did not dilute liability for furnishing inaccurate particulars for the relevant year. The reference was answered against the assessee and the penalty was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>