<?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 (6) TMI 209 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328500</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty of Rs. 4,23,449 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The error in not adding back the exchange rate difference on loan repayment was deemed inadvertent, lacking malafide intent, and not constituting grounds for penalty as per the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jun 2016 14:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 209 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328500</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty of Rs. 4,23,449 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The error in not adding back the exchange rate difference on loan repayment was deemed inadvertent, lacking malafide intent, and not constituting grounds for penalty as per the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>