<?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>2021 (8) TMI 107 - ITAT SURAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410529</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was not justified as the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed income. The claims were made in good faith, and all relevant details were provided. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the assessees were deleted, and their appeals were allowed. The decision applied mutatis mutandis to the co-owner&#039;s case as well.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2021 13:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=651516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 107 - ITAT SURAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410529</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was not justified as the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed income. The claims were made in good faith, and all relevant details were provided. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the assessees were deleted, and their appeals were allowed. The decision applied mutatis mutandis to the co-owner&#039;s case as well.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410529</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>