<?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 (4) TMI 116 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326002</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on the assessee was not justified as the claims were made in good faith and supported by evidence. The penalty of Rs. 6,92,330 was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses did not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, citing relevant case law to support its decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2016 09:11:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422397" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 116 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326002</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on the assessee was not justified as the claims were made in good faith and supported by evidence. The penalty of Rs. 6,92,330 was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal held that the disallowance of expenses did not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, citing relevant case law to support its decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326002</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>