<?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>1992 (2) TMI 18 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21069</link>
    <description>Tampering in the books of account and evidence of understated sales supported a finding of concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Because the assessee had not disclosed income attributable to the suppressed sales, the court held that concealment was established on the available evidence. The penalty was therefore held leviable, and the question was answered in the affirmative against the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:40:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (2) TMI 18 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21069</link>
      <description>Tampering in the books of account and evidence of understated sales supported a finding of concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Because the assessee had not disclosed income attributable to the suppressed sales, the court held that concealment was established on the available evidence. The penalty was therefore held leviable, and the question was answered in the affirmative against the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21069</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>