<?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>1998 (3) TMI 178 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61494</link>
    <description>Partners of M/s. Mangal Engg. Works filed income tax returns 31 months late due to a search and seizure operation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, condoning the delay until the firm filed its return but sustaining a penalty for the remaining one month. The Third Member agreed, emphasizing the partners&#039; main income source from the firm. The Revenue&#039;s appeal and assessees&#039; cross-appeal were dismissed, aligning with High Court precedents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:17:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 178 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61494</link>
      <description>Partners of M/s. Mangal Engg. Works filed income tax returns 31 months late due to a search and seizure operation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, condoning the delay until the firm filed its return but sustaining a penalty for the remaining one month. The Third Member agreed, emphasizing the partners&#039; main income source from the firm. The Revenue&#039;s appeal and assessees&#039; cross-appeal were dismissed, aligning with High Court precedents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>