<?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>2020 (4) TMI 682 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394775</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by the assessee, holding that the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were bad in law due to the ambiguity in the notice and that the penalty on undisclosed income disclosed during the search was not justified as it was voluntarily disclosed without any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalties imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2020 11:41:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=611152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (4) TMI 682 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394775</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by the assessee, holding that the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were bad in law due to the ambiguity in the notice and that the penalty on undisclosed income disclosed during the search was not justified as it was voluntarily disclosed without any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalties imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394775</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>