<?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 (9) TMI 1443 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273112</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the penalty of Rs. 2,66,700 imposed under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act on the assessee for undisclosed income related to excess gold and diamond jewellery. The ITAT found that the assessee failed to disclose and substantiate the manner of earning the undisclosed income as required by the Act. Despite arguments citing case laws, the ITAT concluded that the assessee did not meet the necessary conditions for waiving the penalty, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2018 12:18:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522526" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 1443 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273112</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the penalty of Rs. 2,66,700 imposed under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act on the assessee for undisclosed income related to excess gold and diamond jewellery. The ITAT found that the assessee failed to disclose and substantiate the manner of earning the undisclosed income as required by the Act. Despite arguments citing case laws, the ITAT concluded that the assessee did not meet the necessary conditions for waiving the penalty, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>