<?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>2012 (1) TMI 295 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186338</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). The Tribunal found that the expenses claimed were based on a genuine belief in their allowability as revenue expenditure, not for tax advantage, and cited relevant case laws to support its decision. Consequently, the penalty was deemed unjustified and was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:34:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (1) TMI 295 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186338</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). The Tribunal found that the expenses claimed were based on a genuine belief in their allowability as revenue expenditure, not for tax advantage, and cited relevant case laws to support its decision. Consequently, the penalty was deemed unjustified and was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186338</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>