<?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 (5) TMI 148 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327167</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95, amounting to Rs. 5,69,296. The penalty was confirmed due to the concealment of income particulars and furnishing inaccurate information, rather than valuation discrepancies or ex-parte assessments. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 May 2016 00:28:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=426695" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 148 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327167</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95, amounting to Rs. 5,69,296. The penalty was confirmed due to the concealment of income particulars and furnishing inaccurate information, rather than valuation discrepancies or ex-parte assessments. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327167</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>