<?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>2024 (5) TMI 1259 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753206</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the assessee disclosed the omitted capital gain before issuance of notice under Section 148, paid tax and interest on the admitted differential income, and the additional income was assessed on that basis. The disclosure was made before any final finding of concealment, so the preconditions for penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars were not established, and Explanation 1 did not assist the Revenue. The penalty notice was also defective because it did not specify whether the charge was concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was cancelled and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=754503" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 1259 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753206</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable where the assessee disclosed the omitted capital gain before issuance of notice under Section 148, paid tax and interest on the admitted differential income, and the additional income was assessed on that basis. The disclosure was made before any final finding of concealment, so the preconditions for penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars were not established, and Explanation 1 did not assist the Revenue. The penalty notice was also defective because it did not specify whether the charge was concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was cancelled and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>