<?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>1996 (5) TMI 103 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61467</link>
    <description>The Tribunal declined to refer a question of law to the High Court regarding the deletion of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The Tribunal found no deliberate attempt by the assessee to hide income based on discrepancies in accounts, leading to the deletion of the penalty. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to establish concealment, resulting in the dismissal of the reference application to the High Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:00:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99914" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 103 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61467</link>
      <description>The Tribunal declined to refer a question of law to the High Court regarding the deletion of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The Tribunal found no deliberate attempt by the assessee to hide income based on discrepancies in accounts, leading to the deletion of the penalty. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to establish concealment, resulting in the dismissal of the reference application to the High Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61467</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>