<?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>2023 (5) TMI 959 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438152</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 11,27,850/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The assessee&#039;s appeal was dismissed as the undisclosed investments were not voluntarily disclosed but admitted only after the search operation. The Tribunal found no fault in the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, emphasizing that the penalty was warranted based on incriminating evidence and lack of substantiation for the source of the investments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 May 2023 09:21:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=714489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (5) TMI 959 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438152</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 11,27,850/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The assessee&#039;s appeal was dismissed as the undisclosed investments were not voluntarily disclosed but admitted only after the search operation. The Tribunal found no fault in the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, emphasizing that the penalty was warranted based on incriminating evidence and lack of substantiation for the source of the investments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438152</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>