<?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>2022 (5) TMI 1278 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423018</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, finding that the assessee failed to provide substantial explanation or evidence to rebut the presumption of concealment. The appeal was dismissed, and the penalty order was upheld, with the assessee&#039;s surrender of income not absolving them from penalty due to evidence of conscious concealment. The order was pronounced on 25.05.2022, affirming the penalty imposed by the Commissioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 May 2022 08:37:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=680350" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 1278 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423018</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, finding that the assessee failed to provide substantial explanation or evidence to rebut the presumption of concealment. The appeal was dismissed, and the penalty order was upheld, with the assessee&#039;s surrender of income not absolving them from penalty due to evidence of conscious concealment. The order was pronounced on 25.05.2022, affirming the penalty imposed by the Commissioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423018</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>