<?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 1364 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355943</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of excess interest paid to close relatives, citing unreasonable interest rate discrepancies. For the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2009-10, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, finding the omission to disclose income was not deliberate concealment but based on a genuine belief in exemption. Regarding penalty appeals for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 related to unaccounted stock, penalties were deleted as the assessee disclosed the income within the prescribed timeframe, indicating no concealment. The Tribunal dismissed one appeal by the assessee and two by the Revenue while allowing one appeal by the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2018 06:36:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509923" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1364 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355943</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of excess interest paid to close relatives, citing unreasonable interest rate discrepancies. For the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2009-10, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, finding the omission to disclose income was not deliberate concealment but based on a genuine belief in exemption. Regarding penalty appeals for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 related to unaccounted stock, penalties were deleted as the assessee disclosed the income within the prescribed timeframe, indicating no concealment. The Tribunal dismissed one appeal by the assessee and two by the Revenue while allowing one appeal by the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355943</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>