<?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>2018 (1) TMI 454 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353718</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. It found that the assessing officer lacked sufficient evidence to prove that the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The court emphasized the need for concrete evidence before imposing penalties for estimated income. The appeal was dismissed in favor of the assessee, with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:01:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 454 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353718</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. It found that the assessing officer lacked sufficient evidence to prove that the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The court emphasized the need for concrete evidence before imposing penalties for estimated income. The appeal was dismissed in favor of the assessee, with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>