<?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 (5) TMI 220 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437413</link>
    <description>The tribunal vacated the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2012-13, amounting to Rs. 54,879. The penalty was initially imposed without establishing actual concealment by the assessee, who had made voluntary and bonafide disclosure. Despite discrepancies in income declared, the tribunal considered legal precedents and the appellant&#039;s compliance with the notice issued under section 148, ultimately ruling in favor of vacating the penalty. Additionally, an addition on account of capital gains from penny stock was accepted by the appellant to avoid litigation, with the tribunal also vacating the penalty in this regard based on legal precedents and the principle of liberal interpretation of beneficial provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 May 2023 08:51:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=712699" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (5) TMI 220 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437413</link>
      <description>The tribunal vacated the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2012-13, amounting to Rs. 54,879. The penalty was initially imposed without establishing actual concealment by the assessee, who had made voluntary and bonafide disclosure. Despite discrepancies in income declared, the tribunal considered legal precedents and the appellant&#039;s compliance with the notice issued under section 148, ultimately ruling in favor of vacating the penalty. Additionally, an addition on account of capital gains from penny stock was accepted by the appellant to avoid litigation, with the tribunal also vacating the penalty in this regard based on legal precedents and the principle of liberal interpretation of beneficial provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>