<?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>2015 (12) TMI 286 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268982</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, ruling that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not be sustained. The Tribunal found that the additions to the total income, including unexplained cash credit and bogus loans, lacked justification for penalty imposition. The Tribunal considered legal precedent and the lack of concealment or inaccurate particulars in the second addition, leading to the dismissal of the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2015 12:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=407740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 286 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268982</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, ruling that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could not be sustained. The Tribunal found that the additions to the total income, including unexplained cash credit and bogus loans, lacked justification for penalty imposition. The Tribunal considered legal precedent and the lack of concealment or inaccurate particulars in the second addition, leading to the dismissal of the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>