<?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 (9) TMI 655 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427710</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the penalty was not sustainable as the assessee&#039;s explanation regarding the unsecured loan was bona fide, with all material facts disclosed. It was concluded that there was no positive evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=690769" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 655 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427710</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the penalty was not sustainable as the assessee&#039;s explanation regarding the unsecured loan was bona fide, with all material facts disclosed. It was concluded that there was no positive evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>