<?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>2017 (7) TMI 137 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345025</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the legality of the reopening of assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, finding that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment due to specific information received. The Tribunal also affirmed the validity of the order disposing of objections against the notice under Section 148, stating that the objections were appropriately addressed. However, the addition of Rs. 15,00,000 under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit was upheld as the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to provide the necessary statements and allow cross-examination, remanding the matter for further determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2017 10:52:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=479433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 137 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345025</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the legality of the reopening of assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, finding that the Assessing Officer had valid reasons to believe income had escaped assessment due to specific information received. The Tribunal also affirmed the validity of the order disposing of objections against the notice under Section 148, stating that the objections were appropriately addressed. However, the addition of Rs. 15,00,000 under Section 68 as unexplained cash credit was upheld as the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to provide the necessary statements and allow cross-examination, remanding the matter for further determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>