<?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>2014 (1) TMI 31 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241806</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that losses from transactions involving LTCAs, exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, cannot be set off against taxable LTCG. The Tribunal reinstated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the grounds that the assessee&#039;s claim lacked a bona fide basis and failed to provide full and true disclosure of material facts. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was allowed, and the penalty was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 31 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241806</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that losses from transactions involving LTCAs, exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, cannot be set off against taxable LTCG. The Tribunal reinstated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the grounds that the assessee&#039;s claim lacked a bona fide basis and failed to provide full and true disclosure of material facts. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was allowed, and the penalty was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241806</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>