<?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 (12) TMI 449 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401650</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal by the assessee, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the High Court had admitted substantial questions of law regarding the quantum assessment, making the additions debatable. Consequently, the penalty for alleged concealment was deemed unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2024 10:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630114" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 449 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401650</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal by the assessee, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the High Court had admitted substantial questions of law regarding the quantum assessment, making the additions debatable. Consequently, the penalty for alleged concealment was deemed unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>