<?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 (2) TMI 1746 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463506</link>
    <description>ITAT MUMBAI reduced an ad hoc addition for petty commission income from 1.5% to 0.10% and held the penalty under s.271(1)(c) invalid. The Tribunal found the additions were merely estimates based on statements during search proceedings and there was no cogent material proving deliberate concealment. The AO also erred by invoking both limbs of s.271(1)(c) without framing specific charges, a mandatory step, rendering the penalty null and void. Decision in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2025 13:12:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=848149" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 1746 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463506</link>
      <description>ITAT MUMBAI reduced an ad hoc addition for petty commission income from 1.5% to 0.10% and held the penalty under s.271(1)(c) invalid. The Tribunal found the additions were merely estimates based on statements during search proceedings and there was no cogent material proving deliberate concealment. The AO also erred by invoking both limbs of s.271(1)(c) without framing specific charges, a mandatory step, rendering the penalty null and void. Decision in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463506</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>