<?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 (2) TMI 194 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271489</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals filed by the Revenue. The disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted as Rule 8D was not applicable for AY 2007-08. The penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were deleted as the Assessee had made a bona fide claim, and the additional disallowance was based on a different interpretation of the law, not amounting to furnishing inaccurate particulars.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2016 15:05:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 194 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271489</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed all three appeals filed by the Revenue. The disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted as Rule 8D was not applicable for AY 2007-08. The penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were deleted as the Assessee had made a bona fide claim, and the additional disallowance was based on a different interpretation of the law, not amounting to furnishing inaccurate particulars.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>