<?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>1995 (11) TMI 47 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18432</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to impose a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the Income-tax Officer had the authority to levy the penalty based on the assessment order identifying concealment or inaccurate particulars. The case was directed to go back to the Tribunal for further proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:27:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57432" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (11) TMI 47 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18432</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to impose a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the Income-tax Officer had the authority to levy the penalty based on the assessment order identifying concealment or inaccurate particulars. The case was directed to go back to the Tribunal for further proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18432</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>