<?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>1995 (2) TMI 142 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69078</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the departmental appeal, concluding that the evidence provided by the assessee supported their claim for depreciation and investment allowance. The judgment emphasized the importance of a bona fide belief in making claims and the need for a reasonable basis for penalty imposition, highlighting that mere refusal of a claim should not be the sole basis for initiating penalty proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:45:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107450" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 142 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69078</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the departmental appeal, concluding that the evidence provided by the assessee supported their claim for depreciation and investment allowance. The judgment emphasized the importance of a bona fide belief in making claims and the need for a reasonable basis for penalty imposition, highlighting that mere refusal of a claim should not be the sole basis for initiating penalty proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69078</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>