<?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 (1) TMI 870 - ITAT, Mumbai</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208459</link>
    <description>The ITAT dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to exclude a portion of expenses from penalty calculation. It was determined that the disagreement over expense apportionment did not constitute furnishing inaccurate income particulars. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deemed inapplicable, leading to the dismissal of the revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Jun 2013 11:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181924" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 870 - ITAT, Mumbai</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208459</link>
      <description>The ITAT dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to exclude a portion of expenses from penalty calculation. It was determined that the disagreement over expense apportionment did not constitute furnishing inaccurate income particulars. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deemed inapplicable, leading to the dismissal of the revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>