<?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>2019 (9) TMI 482 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385714</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, restricting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act to the non-disclosure of the second sale deed. The decision emphasized the importance of disclosing all relevant information to avoid tax evasion penalties, highlighting the significance of accurate reporting and compliance with tax laws to prevent penalties for concealment or inaccuracies in income disclosure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2019 09:53:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=586908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 482 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385714</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, restricting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act to the non-disclosure of the second sale deed. The decision emphasized the importance of disclosing all relevant information to avoid tax evasion penalties, highlighting the significance of accurate reporting and compliance with tax laws to prevent penalties for concealment or inaccuracies in income disclosure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385714</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>