<?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>2018 (1) TMI 23 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353287</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the deletion of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the source of cash deposits, relying on a precedent emphasizing the need for cogent material evidence in penalty proceedings. The order was pronounced on 27th December 2017.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 31 Dec 2017 21:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 23 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353287</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, directing the deletion of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the source of cash deposits, relying on a precedent emphasizing the need for cogent material evidence in penalty proceedings. The order was pronounced on 27th December 2017.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353287</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>