<?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 1343 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194051</link>
    <description>The Tribunal reversed the penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) for AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06, emphasizing the requirement of conclusive evidence of concealed income for penalty imposition. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessees, distinguishing between assessment and penalty proceedings. The penalties were set aside, highlighting the importance of clear evidence in cases involving estimated income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:56:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487053" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1343 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194051</link>
      <description>The Tribunal reversed the penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) for AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06, emphasizing the requirement of conclusive evidence of concealed income for penalty imposition. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessees, distinguishing between assessment and penalty proceedings. The penalties were set aside, highlighting the importance of clear evidence in cases involving estimated income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194051</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>