<?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 (7) TMI 93 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329495</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding the addition of unexplained cash credit, confirming only 50% of the amount, and fully allowed the appeal concerning the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantiated evidence in tax assessments and penalties, ensuring fair treatment and adherence to legal principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2016 16:01:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 93 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329495</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding the addition of unexplained cash credit, confirming only 50% of the amount, and fully allowed the appeal concerning the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of substantiated evidence in tax assessments and penalties, ensuring fair treatment and adherence to legal principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>