<?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 (6) TMI 2 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18507</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars or conceal income, thus not warranting penalties under section 271(1)(c). The court found no evidence of fraud or willful negligence by the assessee, emphasizing the consistent disclosure of transactions and production of relevant documents. The Department failed to establish wrongdoing, leading to a judgment in favor of the assessee without costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:20:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (6) TMI 2 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18507</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars or conceal income, thus not warranting penalties under section 271(1)(c). The court found no evidence of fraud or willful negligence by the assessee, emphasizing the consistent disclosure of transactions and production of relevant documents. The Department failed to establish wrongdoing, leading to a judgment in favor of the assessee without costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18507</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>