<?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>2002 (4) TMI 886 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117321</link>
    <description>The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to cancel penalties under section 271(1)(c), restoring the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal held that the seized material formed the basis of assessments, rejecting the argument that the documents qualified as books of account for immunity. It was determined that the revised returns were not filed under section 139(5) and did not exempt the assessee from penalty consequences. The revenue&#039;s appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 886 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117321</link>
      <description>The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to cancel penalties under section 271(1)(c), restoring the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal held that the seized material formed the basis of assessments, rejecting the argument that the documents qualified as books of account for immunity. It was determined that the revised returns were not filed under section 139(5) and did not exempt the assessee from penalty consequences. The revenue&#039;s appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117321</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>