<?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 1020 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269716</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of Exhibitor Promotion expenses by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee failed to substantiate the expenses as genuinely incurred for Indian activities, leading to a finding of concealed income. Despite the assessee&#039;s contentions and provision of details, the Tribunal held that the burden of proof was not met, affirming the penalty for the disallowed expenses.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:06:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=409697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1020 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269716</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of Exhibitor Promotion expenses by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee failed to substantiate the expenses as genuinely incurred for Indian activities, leading to a finding of concealed income. Despite the assessee&#039;s contentions and provision of details, the Tribunal held that the burden of proof was not met, affirming the penalty for the disallowed expenses.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269716</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>