<?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 (9) TMI 622 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398503</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the validity of the order passed under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Penalties on cash and jewellery were deleted as they were considered past savings and inherited assets respectively, not undisclosed income. Additionally, penalties on advances for land purchases were also deleted as they represented outflows, not undisclosed inflows. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the penalties were not justified under the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2020 16:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=622507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 622 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398503</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the validity of the order passed under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Penalties on cash and jewellery were deleted as they were considered past savings and inherited assets respectively, not undisclosed income. Additionally, penalties on advances for land purchases were also deleted as they represented outflows, not undisclosed inflows. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the penalties were not justified under the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>