<?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 168 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326054</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was not justified in the case. The Court emphasized that the issue was debatable, and the assessee had provided all income details, concluding that no penalty should be imposed. The Court referenced previous judgments to support its decision, ultimately dismissing the appeal and affirming that the penalty was unwarranted based on the facts presented.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:13:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422574" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 168 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326054</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was not justified in the case. The Court emphasized that the issue was debatable, and the assessee had provided all income details, concluding that no penalty should be imposed. The Court referenced previous judgments to support its decision, ultimately dismissing the appeal and affirming that the penalty was unwarranted based on the facts presented.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326054</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>