<?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>2011 (3) TMI 965 - ITAT, Mumbai</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208740</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the assessee&#039;s entitlement to the deduction under section 33AC, emphasizing the nature of the assessee&#039;s operations and contracts in the shipping industry. The decision highlighted the importance of the main business activity in determining eligibility for tax deductions and penalties under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeals, stating that the penalty basis no longer existed due to the assessee&#039;s eligibility for the deduction under section 33AC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182200" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 965 - ITAT, Mumbai</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208740</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the assessee&#039;s entitlement to the deduction under section 33AC, emphasizing the nature of the assessee&#039;s operations and contracts in the shipping industry. The decision highlighted the importance of the main business activity in determining eligibility for tax deductions and penalties under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeals, stating that the penalty basis no longer existed due to the assessee&#039;s eligibility for the deduction under section 33AC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>