<?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>2012 (1) TMI 212 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177331</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2005-06 was unjustified. The disparity in the treatment of income by the assessee and the Assessing Officer, along with the debatable nature of the issue, led to the conclusion that the penalty was not warranted. Consequently, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed on January 11, 2012.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2017 09:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412282" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (1) TMI 212 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177331</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2005-06 was unjustified. The disparity in the treatment of income by the assessee and the Assessing Officer, along with the debatable nature of the issue, led to the conclusion that the penalty was not warranted. Consequently, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed on January 11, 2012.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177331</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>