<?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>2003 (1) TMI 237 - ITAT BOMBAY-J</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59663</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to levy a penalty of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The Tribunal found that the assessee had concealed income, and the additional income declared was not voluntary but made after detection by the Revenue. The appeals by the assessee were dismissed, affirming the penalty imposed by the CIT(A).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=98112" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 237 - ITAT BOMBAY-J</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59663</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to levy a penalty of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The Tribunal found that the assessee had concealed income, and the additional income declared was not voluntary but made after detection by the Revenue. The appeals by the assessee were dismissed, affirming the penalty imposed by the CIT(A).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59663</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>