<?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 (1) TMI 82 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56667</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal overturned the penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the assessee&#039;s agreement to the addition of Rs. 35,000 did not imply consent to penalty proceedings or admission of concealment. It emphasized that the addition was made to cover possible leakages and not due to concealment of income. The Tribunal found that the facts did not support the Income Tax Officer&#039;s contention of concealment, leading to the deletion of the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 12:00:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=95129" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (1) TMI 82 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56667</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal overturned the penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the assessee&#039;s agreement to the addition of Rs. 35,000 did not imply consent to penalty proceedings or admission of concealment. It emphasized that the addition was made to cover possible leakages and not due to concealment of income. The Tribunal found that the facts did not support the Income Tax Officer&#039;s contention of concealment, leading to the deletion of the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56667</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>