<?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>1989 (1) TMI 55 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24216</link>
    <description>The court held that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal erred in not considering the applicability of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) and relied on inapplicable precedents. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, concluding that the assessee failed to rebut the presumption of concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Revenue was awarded costs of Rs. 500.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:51:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63214" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (1) TMI 55 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24216</link>
      <description>The court held that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal erred in not considering the applicability of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) and relied on inapplicable precedents. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, concluding that the assessee failed to rebut the presumption of concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Revenue was awarded costs of Rs. 500.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24216</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>