<?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>2020 (10) TMI 1192 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400218</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the penalty of Rs. 1,99,294 imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal emphasized that without concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, mere disallowance of purchases does not justify a penalty. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, and the order pronounced on 27.10.2020.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2020 12:02:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (10) TMI 1192 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400218</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the penalty of Rs. 1,99,294 imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal emphasized that without concrete evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, mere disallowance of purchases does not justify a penalty. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, and the order pronounced on 27.10.2020.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400218</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>