<?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>2008 (10) TMI 656 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182150</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed both the assessee&#039;s and the Department&#039;s appeals, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the penalty on the enhanced amount and confirming the penalty on the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the distinct jurisdictions of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) in directing penalties under Section 158BFA(2).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 May 2016 18:08:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=426516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 656 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182150</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed both the assessee&#039;s and the Department&#039;s appeals, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the penalty on the enhanced amount and confirming the penalty on the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the distinct jurisdictions of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) in directing penalties under Section 158BFA(2).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182150</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>