<?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>2010 (12) TMI 242 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203193</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was not justified as the claims made by the assessee regarding depreciation and capital gains were based on reasonable interpretations of the law and were transparently disclosed. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs. 10,34,56,092. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2016 16:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176759" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 242 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203193</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was not justified as the claims made by the assessee regarding depreciation and capital gains were based on reasonable interpretations of the law and were transparently disclosed. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs. 10,34,56,092. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203193</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>