<?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>1984 (3) TMI 85 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55871</link>
    <description>Penalty for alleged concealment of wealth was not sustainable where the assessee had disclosed the relevant particulars, including the assets and values adopted in connected family matters. The additions in assessment arose mainly from the Revenue&#039;s treatment of partial partitions and the manner of considering family status and related assets, rather than from any clear concealment of material facts. The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to appreciate the connected assessments and the disclosed factual position, so the penalty foundation was absent. Penalty proceedings were also held to be invalidly initiated. The penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:45:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=94333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (3) TMI 85 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55871</link>
      <description>Penalty for alleged concealment of wealth was not sustainable where the assessee had disclosed the relevant particulars, including the assets and values adopted in connected family matters. The additions in assessment arose mainly from the Revenue&#039;s treatment of partial partitions and the manner of considering family status and related assets, rather than from any clear concealment of material facts. The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to appreciate the connected assessments and the disclosed factual position, so the penalty foundation was absent. Penalty proceedings were also held to be invalidly initiated. The penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55871</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>