<?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 (6) TMI 700 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248796</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal overturned the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(C) of the Act on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal held that the revision of the indexation claim during assessment proceedings did not constitute concealment of income or inaccurate particulars. Rejecting alternate claims during assessment did not justify the penalty. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that there was no concealment or inaccurate particulars, leading to the appeal being allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:18:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=358054" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 700 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248796</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal overturned the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(C) of the Act on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal held that the revision of the indexation claim during assessment proceedings did not constitute concealment of income or inaccurate particulars. Rejecting alternate claims during assessment did not justify the penalty. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that there was no concealment or inaccurate particulars, leading to the appeal being allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248796</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>