<?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 (7) TMI 294 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249257</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal found the Revenue&#039;s case unsubstantiated, noting a net surplus in the income and expenditure account even after excluding bank interest. It deemed the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(d) valid and concluded that the Revenue&#039;s arguments lacked merit, leading to the deletion of the penalty. The Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the assessee was pronounced on June 18, 2014.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2014 09:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=359075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 294 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249257</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal found the Revenue&#039;s case unsubstantiated, noting a net surplus in the income and expenditure account even after excluding bank interest. It deemed the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(d) valid and concluded that the Revenue&#039;s arguments lacked merit, leading to the deletion of the penalty. The Tribunal&#039;s decision in favor of the assessee was pronounced on June 18, 2014.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249257</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>