<?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>1986 (3) TMI 126 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61346</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, canceling the penalty imposed for concealment under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 15,990. Despite discrepancies in payment figures, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of assessing evidence and ruled that penalties should not be imposed without malicious intent. The decision highlighted the need for document verification and cautioned against falsification, ultimately leading to the cancellation of the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:50:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (3) TMI 126 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61346</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, canceling the penalty imposed for concealment under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 15,990. Despite discrepancies in payment figures, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of assessing evidence and ruled that penalties should not be imposed without malicious intent. The decision highlighted the need for document verification and cautioned against falsification, ultimately leading to the cancellation of the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61346</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>