<?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>1982 (3) TMI 89 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56196</link>
    <description>Voluntary disclosure under section 14(1) was treated as covering all concealed income of the relevant previous years, and the assessee could include his proportionate share of a firm&#039;s undisclosed income. The explanatory notes in Form B were accepted as permissible clarifications showing that the amount disclosed was in addition to partnership income already returned or assessed, and the reference to &quot;immunity&quot; was given its ordinary meaning rather than being limited to penalty and prosecution. On the facts, objections based on form or minor discrepancies were rejected, but the tribunal held that the same income had been taxed twice and the proportionate share attributable to the firm&#039;s undisclosed income had to be excluded from reassessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:04:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=94658" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (3) TMI 89 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56196</link>
      <description>Voluntary disclosure under section 14(1) was treated as covering all concealed income of the relevant previous years, and the assessee could include his proportionate share of a firm&#039;s undisclosed income. The explanatory notes in Form B were accepted as permissible clarifications showing that the amount disclosed was in addition to partnership income already returned or assessed, and the reference to &quot;immunity&quot; was given its ordinary meaning rather than being limited to penalty and prosecution. On the facts, objections based on form or minor discrepancies were rejected, but the tribunal held that the same income had been taxed twice and the proportionate share attributable to the firm&#039;s undisclosed income had to be excluded from reassessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>