<?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>2008 (8) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32382</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deemed unjustifiable due to significant delay, lack of admission of concealed income, and reliance on unverified statements. Additionally, the court held that the explanation to section 271(1)(c) did not apply when the assessee was assessed at a loss.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32382</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deemed unjustifiable due to significant delay, lack of admission of concealed income, and reliance on unverified statements. Additionally, the court held that the explanation to section 271(1)(c) did not apply when the assessee was assessed at a loss.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>