<?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>2004 (1) TMI 632 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116706</link>
    <description>The tribunal overturned penalties imposed under sections 271D and 271E of the IT Act. In the first issue, the penalty for receiving a cash loan was deleted as the transaction was genuine and not for taking a loan. The second issue involved a penalty for debiting an amount, which was also deleted due to the genuine nature of the transaction. The tribunal found no evidence of intentional violations of the IT Act sections, leading to the deletion of both penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 632 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116706</link>
      <description>The tribunal overturned penalties imposed under sections 271D and 271E of the IT Act. In the first issue, the penalty for receiving a cash loan was deleted as the transaction was genuine and not for taking a loan. The second issue involved a penalty for debiting an amount, which was also deleted due to the genuine nature of the transaction. The tribunal found no evidence of intentional violations of the IT Act sections, leading to the deletion of both penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116706</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>