<?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>2015 (6) TMI 1214 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293975</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the CIT(A)&#039;s order, and directed the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 7,30,464 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2005-06. The Tribunal found the penalty unjustified, as it was based solely on estimates and lacked concrete evidence of grey market purchases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=638792" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 1214 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293975</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the CIT(A)&#039;s order, and directed the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 7,30,464 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2005-06. The Tribunal found the penalty unjustified, as it was based solely on estimates and lacked concrete evidence of grey market purchases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293975</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>