<?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 (3) TMI 36 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21360</link>
    <description>A waiver of interest and penalty under the Income-tax Act depends on full and true disclosure of the relevant facts, including a complete revised shareholder position where capital structure has changed. Here, the assessee&#039;s voluntary disclosure after issuing shares was found incomplete because it did not furnish the revised list of shareholders reflecting the reduced capital structure and the surrender of part of the receipt as income from undisclosed sources. The Commissioner&#039;s view that section 273A(1)(b) was not satisfied was held to be reasonable, and the writ court found no basis to interfere under Article 226. The material also attracted section 271(1)(c).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:35:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60359" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (3) TMI 36 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21360</link>
      <description>A waiver of interest and penalty under the Income-tax Act depends on full and true disclosure of the relevant facts, including a complete revised shareholder position where capital structure has changed. Here, the assessee&#039;s voluntary disclosure after issuing shares was found incomplete because it did not furnish the revised list of shareholders reflecting the reduced capital structure and the surrender of part of the receipt as income from undisclosed sources. The Commissioner&#039;s view that section 273A(1)(b) was not satisfied was held to be reasonable, and the writ court found no basis to interfere under Article 226. The material also attracted section 271(1)(c).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21360</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>