<?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 (8) TMI 406 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331022</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a bona fide explanation and disclosed all relevant facts regarding the deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2016 13:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=437990" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 406 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331022</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a bona fide explanation and disclosed all relevant facts regarding the deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). As a result, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331022</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>