<?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>1997 (8) TMI 49 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16932</link>
    <description>A prosecution under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act could not be sustained where the assessee filed a revised return within the time allowed by section 139(5), disclosed the omitted income, and paid the tax with interest. On those undisputed facts, the omission was not shown to be deliberate concealment with intent to evade tax, so the foundation of wilful concealment was absent and the complaint was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:37:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 49 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16932</link>
      <description>A prosecution under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act could not be sustained where the assessee filed a revised return within the time allowed by section 139(5), disclosed the omitted income, and paid the tax with interest. On those undisputed facts, the omission was not shown to be deliberate concealment with intent to evade tax, so the foundation of wilful concealment was absent and the complaint was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16932</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>