<?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 (2) TMI 9 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11197</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decision. The Court held that the undisclosed income disclosed in the revised return was not part of the search operation&#039;s findings and qualified for the amnesty scheme, as per the relevant Board Circular. Therefore, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was applicable to the assessee, concluding the matter with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Aug 2009 17:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 9 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11197</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decision. The Court held that the undisclosed income disclosed in the revised return was not part of the search operation&#039;s findings and qualified for the amnesty scheme, as per the relevant Board Circular. Therefore, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was applicable to the assessee, concluding the matter with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11197</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>