<?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>2004 (3) TMI 324 - ITAT BOMBAY-H</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59533</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the cancellation of a penalty of Rs. 3,05,998 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1993-94. The Tribunal found that while there were discrepancies in the case, the material provided by the Revenue was deemed sufficient for quantum addition but not for penalizing the assessee for income concealment. The Tribunal emphasized the evolving stock figures, minimal income declaration by the assessee, conditional surrender to avoid penalty, and lack of grounds for penalty imposition. The decision was based on legal principles and precedents, leading to the cancellation of the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:04:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 324 - ITAT BOMBAY-H</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59533</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the cancellation of a penalty of Rs. 3,05,998 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1993-94. The Tribunal found that while there were discrepancies in the case, the material provided by the Revenue was deemed sufficient for quantum addition but not for penalizing the assessee for income concealment. The Tribunal emphasized the evolving stock figures, minimal income declaration by the assessee, conditional surrender to avoid penalty, and lack of grounds for penalty imposition. The decision was based on legal principles and precedents, leading to the cancellation of the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59533</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>