<?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 (12) TMI 1144 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336499</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAA was not justified as the assessee qualified for immunity under Section 271AAA(2). The assessee disclosed the undisclosed income, explained the earning method, and made efforts to substantiate it. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was set aside, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed on 15th October 2016.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:31:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1144 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336499</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271AAA was not justified as the assessee qualified for immunity under Section 271AAA(2). The assessee disclosed the undisclosed income, explained the earning method, and made efforts to substantiate it. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was set aside, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed on 15th October 2016.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336499</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>