<?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>2016 (4) TMI 523 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326409</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the penalty under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income-tax Act. The decision was based on the absence of recorded satisfaction under Section 158BD and insufficient evidence to support the alleged income concealment during the block period. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence and proper justification for additions of undisclosed income, ruling in favor of the assessee due to the lack thereof.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=423776" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 523 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326409</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the penalty under Section 158BFA(2) of the Income-tax Act. The decision was based on the absence of recorded satisfaction under Section 158BD and insufficient evidence to support the alleged income concealment during the block period. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence and proper justification for additions of undisclosed income, ruling in favor of the assessee due to the lack thereof.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326409</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>