<?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>1976 (1) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38738</link>
    <description>The High Court of Allahabad ruled in favor of the assessee, a registered firm, in a case concerning the cancellation of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the penalty was unjustified as there was a lack of evidence to prove that certain cash credits were concealed income, leading to the penalty being canceled by the Tribunal. Additionally, the Court rejected the Revenue&#039;s argument invoking the Explanation to section 271, stating that the Explanation could not apply without specific data on expenditures, which was not available in this case. The ruling favored the assessee, with costs assessed at Rs. 200.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 16:54:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=77284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (1) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38738</link>
      <description>The High Court of Allahabad ruled in favor of the assessee, a registered firm, in a case concerning the cancellation of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the penalty was unjustified as there was a lack of evidence to prove that certain cash credits were concealed income, leading to the penalty being canceled by the Tribunal. Additionally, the Court rejected the Revenue&#039;s argument invoking the Explanation to section 271, stating that the Explanation could not apply without specific data on expenditures, which was not available in this case. The ruling favored the assessee, with costs assessed at Rs. 200.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38738</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>