<?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 (7) TMI 604 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330006</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). It held that the issue of the holding period was debatable and supported by judicial precedents, concluding that the assessee&#039;s claim, though not accepted by the authorities, was made in good faith and did not warrant a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:53:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 604 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330006</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). It held that the issue of the holding period was debatable and supported by judicial precedents, concluding that the assessee&#039;s claim, though not accepted by the authorities, was made in good faith and did not warrant a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>