<?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>2015 (8) TMI 1440 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272789</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal and deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and without proof of such actions, the penalty was deemed unjustified. The decision aligned with a High Court ruling, emphasizing the importance of substantiated explanations to avoid penalties and the burden of proof on the tax authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2018 05:57:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520732" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1440 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272789</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal and deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and without proof of such actions, the penalty was deemed unjustified. The decision aligned with a High Court ruling, emphasizing the importance of substantiated explanations to avoid penalties and the burden of proof on the tax authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272789</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>