<?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 (9) TMI 305 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347548</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the addition to the income of the assessee to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases, down from the initial 24.71%. The challenge to the legality of reopening the assessment was dismissed. The Tribunal instructed the Assessing Officer to adjust the additions accordingly. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were not addressed specifically in the Tribunal&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2022 15:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488376" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 305 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347548</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, reducing the addition to the income of the assessee to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases, down from the initial 24.71%. The challenge to the legality of reopening the assessment was dismissed. The Tribunal instructed the Assessing Officer to adjust the additions accordingly. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were not addressed specifically in the Tribunal&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347548</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>