<?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>2009 (8) TMI 69 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34489</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, finding deliberate income concealment by the assessee. The Tribunal&#039;s deletion of the penalty was overturned due to erroneous reliance on a different case and failure to assess the present case independently. The High Court reiterated that retrospective amendment obviated the need for explicit satisfaction recording by the AO, supporting the penalty imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 May 2016 17:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73111" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 69 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34489</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, finding deliberate income concealment by the assessee. The Tribunal&#039;s deletion of the penalty was overturned due to erroneous reliance on a different case and failure to assess the present case independently. The High Court reiterated that retrospective amendment obviated the need for explicit satisfaction recording by the AO, supporting the penalty imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>