<?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>2013 (4) TMI 886 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197404</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to dismiss the appeal due to a delay in filing, citing insufficient cause and lack of evidence. The additions of unexplained capital introduction and unsecured loans were upheld as the assessee failed to provide required details and explanations. The ITAT emphasized diligence and proper verification, ultimately dismissing the appeal and affirming the AO&#039;s decisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2018 15:40:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503283" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 886 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197404</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to dismiss the appeal due to a delay in filing, citing insufficient cause and lack of evidence. The additions of unexplained capital introduction and unsecured loans were upheld as the assessee failed to provide required details and explanations. The ITAT emphasized diligence and proper verification, ultimately dismissing the appeal and affirming the AO&#039;s decisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>