<?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>2010 (7) TMI 678 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205252</link>
    <description>The ITAT dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and claiming false expenses. The disallowance of commission payments was upheld due to the lack of evidence of services rendered. The retraction of statements recorded during the survey was not accepted, and the applicability of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was affirmed, leading to the conclusion that the penalty was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178770" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 678 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205252</link>
      <description>The ITAT dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and claiming false expenses. The disallowance of commission payments was upheld due to the lack of evidence of services rendered. The retraction of statements recorded during the survey was not accepted, and the applicability of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was affirmed, leading to the conclusion that the penalty was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205252</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>