<?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>2014 (4) TMI 664 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246228</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, confirming additions, disallowances, and penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act. The assessee failed to provide adequate evidence to prove the genuineness of transactions, resulting in upheld additions for unexplained cash credits and disallowances for expenses. The tribunal emphasized the need for substantiated claims and upheld penalties under Section 271(1)(c) due to the assessee&#039;s non-compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2014 11:10:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352764" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 664 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246228</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, confirming additions, disallowances, and penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act. The assessee failed to provide adequate evidence to prove the genuineness of transactions, resulting in upheld additions for unexplained cash credits and disallowances for expenses. The tribunal emphasized the need for substantiated claims and upheld penalties under Section 271(1)(c) due to the assessee&#039;s non-compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246228</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>