<?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>2005 (7) TMI 84 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10735</link>
    <description>The court held that the word &quot;income&quot; in section 271(1)(c) refers to positive income. Therefore, penalty provisions are not applicable when the assessed income is nil or a loss. The court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision and noted that the 2002 amendment, allowing penalties for losses, is prospective. The outcome favored the assessee, ruling against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49755" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 84 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10735</link>
      <description>The court held that the word &quot;income&quot; in section 271(1)(c) refers to positive income. Therefore, penalty provisions are not applicable when the assessed income is nil or a loss. The court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision and noted that the 2002 amendment, allowing penalties for losses, is prospective. The outcome favored the assessee, ruling against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10735</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>