<?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 (3) TMI 34 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11426</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 273(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act was discretionary, and that discretion was available not only to the Assessing Officer but also to the appellate authorities. The Tribunal cancelled the penalty after finding reasonable cause in the surrounding circumstances, including the search, the belated return, the additional income disclosed, and the assessee&#039;s claim of protection under the amnesty scheme. As the Tribunal&#039;s exercise of discretion was bona fide and within law, a different view on the same facts did not justify interference. The penalty cancellation was therefore upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2009 11:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50442" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 34 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11426</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 273(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act was discretionary, and that discretion was available not only to the Assessing Officer but also to the appellate authorities. The Tribunal cancelled the penalty after finding reasonable cause in the surrounding circumstances, including the search, the belated return, the additional income disclosed, and the assessee&#039;s claim of protection under the amnesty scheme. As the Tribunal&#039;s exercise of discretion was bona fide and within law, a different view on the same facts did not justify interference. The penalty cancellation was therefore upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>