<?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 (8) TMI 990 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365518</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the findings of the CIT (A) and the ITAT that the respondent assessee had not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted, as there was no substantial question of law involved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2018 13:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=531150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 990 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365518</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the findings of the CIT (A) and the ITAT that the respondent assessee had not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted, as there was no substantial question of law involved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365518</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>