<?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>2000 (4) TMI 180 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71226</link>
    <description>The appeal challenged the addition of Rs. 1,00,250 to the returned income for the assessment year 1992-93 due to lack of confirmation evidence for cash credits. The court upheld the addition, emphasizing that the agreement to the addition did not preclude penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The court ruled that the Assessing Officer had the authority to initiate penalty proceedings despite the agreement, and the appeal was dismissed, affirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,250 to the assessee&#039;s income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:26:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 180 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71226</link>
      <description>The appeal challenged the addition of Rs. 1,00,250 to the returned income for the assessment year 1992-93 due to lack of confirmation evidence for cash credits. The court upheld the addition, emphasizing that the agreement to the addition did not preclude penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The court ruled that the Assessing Officer had the authority to initiate penalty proceedings despite the agreement, and the appeal was dismissed, affirming the addition of Rs. 1,00,250 to the assessee&#039;s income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>