<?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 799 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249763</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the rejection of the capital gain/loss claim did not justify penalty imposition as there was no evidence of concealment or inaccurate reporting of income. The decision was based on the bonafide nature of the claim and the debatable nature of the income treatment, leading to the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2006-07.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:23:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=360411" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 799 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249763</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the rejection of the capital gain/loss claim did not justify penalty imposition as there was no evidence of concealment or inaccurate reporting of income. The decision was based on the bonafide nature of the claim and the debatable nature of the income treatment, leading to the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2006-07.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249763</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>