<?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>2015 (12) TMI 1611 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188887</link>
    <description>The ITAT partially allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08, confirming the penalty on disallowed expenses but deleting the penalty on unproved cash credits. The ITAT emphasized the importance of substantiating claims and providing necessary evidence to avoid penalties under the Income Tax Act, stating that a mere unsustainable claim does not automatically imply inaccurate particulars of income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2016 09:43:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452216" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1611 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188887</link>
      <description>The ITAT partially allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08, confirming the penalty on disallowed expenses but deleting the penalty on unproved cash credits. The ITAT emphasized the importance of substantiating claims and providing necessary evidence to avoid penalties under the Income Tax Act, stating that a mere unsustainable claim does not automatically imply inaccurate particulars of income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188887</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>