<?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 (5) TMI 18 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11019</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decision to cancel the penalty imposed on the assessee. The revised return filed by the assessee was deemed voluntary and eligible for the amnesty scheme benefits, as concealment was not categorically detected before the filing of the revised return. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that only the additional amount assessed by the Assessing Officer was subject to penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50038" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 18 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11019</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decision to cancel the penalty imposed on the assessee. The revised return filed by the assessee was deemed voluntary and eligible for the amnesty scheme benefits, as concealment was not categorically detected before the filing of the revised return. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that only the additional amount assessed by the Assessing Officer was subject to penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11019</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>