<?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>1987 (2) TMI 86 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55185</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the revenue&#039;s appeal, confirming the penalty for concealment of income. The Tribunal found the assessee&#039;s explanations lacking credibility and upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, as the returned income was significantly less than the assessed income. The Tribunal determined that the assessee failed to prove the absence of fraud or willful neglect in the income declaration, leading to the penalty being upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:18:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93648" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 86 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55185</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the revenue&#039;s appeal, confirming the penalty for concealment of income. The Tribunal found the assessee&#039;s explanations lacking credibility and upheld the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, as the returned income was significantly less than the assessed income. The Tribunal determined that the assessee failed to prove the absence of fraud or willful neglect in the income declaration, leading to the penalty being upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>