<?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 (2) TMI 1251 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195324</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was unjustified. It concluded that the assessee had complied with the notices by denying ownership of the bank account and providing responses to the best of his ability. As there was no evidence proving ownership of the alleged bank account, the Tribunal deleted the penalty and allowed the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:33:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493449" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1251 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195324</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act was unjustified. It concluded that the assessee had complied with the notices by denying ownership of the bank account and providing responses to the best of his ability. As there was no evidence proving ownership of the alleged bank account, the Tribunal deleted the penalty and allowed the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>