<?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>2013 (7) TMI 290 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235132</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable where the assessee had fully disclosed all material facts and claimed deduction under section 80HHC on the basis of the then-prevailing High Court ruling. The Tribunal found no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and the later reversal of that ruling by the Supreme Court did not convert the original claim into penal misconduct. Deletion of penalty was therefore justified, and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197542" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 290 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235132</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable where the assessee had fully disclosed all material facts and claimed deduction under section 80HHC on the basis of the then-prevailing High Court ruling. The Tribunal found no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and the later reversal of that ruling by the Supreme Court did not convert the original claim into penal misconduct. Deletion of penalty was therefore justified, and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>