<?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>2000 (7) TMI 34 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14749</link>
    <description>The High Court interpreted penalty provisions under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in a case involving a Rs. 25,000 penalty on the assessee for alleged concealment of wealth. The Tribunal found discrepancies but ruled they were bona fide errors, not deliberate concealment. Upholding the Tribunal&#039;s decision, the Court emphasized the factual nature of the findings and the lack of intent to hide assets, leading to the cancellation of the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 34 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14749</link>
      <description>The High Court interpreted penalty provisions under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in a case involving a Rs. 25,000 penalty on the assessee for alleged concealment of wealth. The Tribunal found discrepancies but ruled they were bona fide errors, not deliberate concealment. Upholding the Tribunal&#039;s decision, the Court emphasized the factual nature of the findings and the lack of intent to hide assets, leading to the cancellation of the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>