<?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>1990 (5) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23253</link>
    <description>The court upheld the penalty imposed on an assessee partnership firm under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1975-76. The tribunal found that the concealed income was deliberately understated by the assessee, justifying the penalty. The court determined that no question of law arose from the tribunal&#039;s decision and rejected the assessee&#039;s challenges. Additionally, the court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s plea for recomputation of penalty, stating that the tribunal lacked authority to enhance the penalty without a cross-appeal or objection. Ultimately, both applications were denied, affirming the penalty on the partnership firm.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:42:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62252" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (5) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23253</link>
      <description>The court upheld the penalty imposed on an assessee partnership firm under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1975-76. The tribunal found that the concealed income was deliberately understated by the assessee, justifying the penalty. The court determined that no question of law arose from the tribunal&#039;s decision and rejected the assessee&#039;s challenges. Additionally, the court dismissed the Revenue&#039;s plea for recomputation of penalty, stating that the tribunal lacked authority to enhance the penalty without a cross-appeal or objection. Ultimately, both applications were denied, affirming the penalty on the partnership firm.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23253</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>