<?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>2016 (1) TMI 666 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270874</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2005-06. The Tribunal found that the assessee acted in good faith, with genuine belief and full disclosure, leading to the conclusion that there was no intention to conceal income or provide inaccurate particulars. The penalty was deemed unwarranted, and the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2016 06:37:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=413510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 666 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270874</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2005-06. The Tribunal found that the assessee acted in good faith, with genuine belief and full disclosure, leading to the conclusion that there was no intention to conceal income or provide inaccurate particulars. The penalty was deemed unwarranted, and the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>