<?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>1993 (1) TMI 311 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285755</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 271A for alleged non-compliance with section 44AA was held unsustainable where the assessee showed reasonable cause under section 273B. The record indicated that, despite not maintaining a cash book and ledger due to limited education and inability to engage an accountant, the assessee kept sufficient particulars of bank accounts, investments, drawings, tax payments, contract receipts and outstanding credits, which had enabled income computation in earlier years and in the relevant year. The penalty order was also defective because it did not properly record a finding on reasonable cause, and the applicability of rule 6F to contract receipts was found doubtful, so the penalty was cancelled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2020 15:05:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601383" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (1) TMI 311 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285755</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 271A for alleged non-compliance with section 44AA was held unsustainable where the assessee showed reasonable cause under section 273B. The record indicated that, despite not maintaining a cash book and ledger due to limited education and inability to engage an accountant, the assessee kept sufficient particulars of bank accounts, investments, drawings, tax payments, contract receipts and outstanding credits, which had enabled income computation in earlier years and in the relevant year. The penalty order was also defective because it did not properly record a finding on reasonable cause, and the applicability of rule 6F to contract receipts was found doubtful, so the penalty was cancelled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>