<?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>1987 (7) TMI 47 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25259</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income in relation to the assessment year 1962-63. The Court emphasized the application of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) in cases with significant differences between returned and assessed income. Legal presumptions of concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income were raised against the assessee, who failed to provide substantial evidence to justify discrepancies, leading to the reinstatement of the penalty initially imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The judgment highlighted the burden of proof on the assessee to rebut such presumptions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:38:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (7) TMI 47 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25259</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income in relation to the assessment year 1962-63. The Court emphasized the application of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) in cases with significant differences between returned and assessed income. Legal presumptions of concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income were raised against the assessee, who failed to provide substantial evidence to justify discrepancies, leading to the reinstatement of the penalty initially imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. The judgment highlighted the burden of proof on the assessee to rebut such presumptions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25259</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>