<?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>2010 (7) TMI 1083 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184939</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not justified. The disallowances and reclassifications made by the Assessing Officer were found to be unsubstantiated, as the assessee provided evidence and explanations supporting its claims. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty order was cancelled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2016 18:16:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 1083 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184939</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not justified. The disallowances and reclassifications made by the Assessing Officer were found to be unsubstantiated, as the assessee provided evidence and explanations supporting its claims. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty order was cancelled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184939</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>