<?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 (6) TMI 211 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328502</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, confirming a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lacs under Section 271(1)(c) for unexplained cash deposits. The issue of a Rs. 14 lacs deposit was remanded for further verification due to insufficient evidence on medical expenses. The decision emphasized the necessity of credible evidence and consistent explanations by the assessee, aligning with legal principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2016 12:08:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 211 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328502</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, confirming a penalty of Rs. 2.50 lacs under Section 271(1)(c) for unexplained cash deposits. The issue of a Rs. 14 lacs deposit was remanded for further verification due to insufficient evidence on medical expenses. The decision emphasized the necessity of credible evidence and consistent explanations by the assessee, aligning with legal principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328502</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>