<?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 1150 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176841</link>
    <description>The HC held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unjustified and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the penalty issue was debatable, referencing ongoing quantum proceedings and substantial questions of law. The HC concurred, finding no grounds for imposing the penalty and upheld its cancellation, ruling in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2025 17:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411110" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 1150 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176841</link>
      <description>The HC held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unjustified and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the penalty issue was debatable, referencing ongoing quantum proceedings and substantial questions of law. The HC concurred, finding no grounds for imposing the penalty and upheld its cancellation, ruling in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>