<?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>1978 (8) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36443</link>
    <description>Penalty for concealment must be confined to the income actually proved to have been concealed, not the full addition sustained in assessment. Because only part of the suppressed sales was established and the balance of the income addition was based on estimate, the entire enhanced income could not be treated as concealed income for penalty purposes. The penalty was therefore sustainable only to the extent of the concealment actually proved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:28:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (8) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36443</link>
      <description>Penalty for concealment must be confined to the income actually proved to have been concealed, not the full addition sustained in assessment. Because only part of the suppressed sales was established and the balance of the income addition was based on estimate, the entire enhanced income could not be treated as concealed income for penalty purposes. The penalty was therefore sustainable only to the extent of the concealment actually proved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36443</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>