<?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>2012 (11) TMI 502 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218487</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was determined that the assessee had made a bona fide claim for depreciation on the membership fee of the stock exchange, and there was no evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The mere disallowance of the claim did not warrant the penalty, as it was based on a debatable issue and the explanation provided was deemed bona fide.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191859" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (11) TMI 502 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218487</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was determined that the assessee had made a bona fide claim for depreciation on the membership fee of the stock exchange, and there was no evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The mere disallowance of the claim did not warrant the penalty, as it was based on a debatable issue and the explanation provided was deemed bona fide.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>