<?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>2023 (4) TMI 268 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436242</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2008-2009 to 2012-2013, excluding 2011-2012, was not justified as the Revenue authorities failed to establish a link between the additional income disclosed and assets found during the search. Consequently, all appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the penalties were deleted. Additionally, the delay in filing appeals was condoned due to the COVID period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2023 17:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=710133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (4) TMI 268 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436242</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2008-2009 to 2012-2013, excluding 2011-2012, was not justified as the Revenue authorities failed to establish a link between the additional income disclosed and assets found during the search. Consequently, all appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the penalties were deleted. Additionally, the delay in filing appeals was condoned due to the COVID period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>