<?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>2000 (6) TMI 158 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71588</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete penalties under section 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between loans and deposits, noting that the assessee had repaid loans, not deposits, through non-account payee instruments. The Tribunal found no basis for invoking section 271E as the penalties were unjustified, ultimately dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeals and affirming the deletion of penalties by the CIT(A).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:47:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 158 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71588</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete penalties under section 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between loans and deposits, noting that the assessee had repaid loans, not deposits, through non-account payee instruments. The Tribunal found no basis for invoking section 271E as the penalties were unjustified, ultimately dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeals and affirming the deletion of penalties by the CIT(A).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71588</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>