<?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 (2) TMI 979 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355558</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the decisions of lower authorities in a case involving penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The respondent, a property dealer, met all conditions for immunity from penalties by admitting income post a search, specifying its source, and paying taxes with interest. The court found the belated tax payment did not violate the clause and dismissed the appeals, concluding that no substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2018 09:24:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 979 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355558</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the decisions of lower authorities in a case involving penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The respondent, a property dealer, met all conditions for immunity from penalties by admitting income post a search, specifying its source, and paying taxes with interest. The court found the belated tax payment did not violate the clause and dismissed the appeals, concluding that no substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>