<?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>2009 (5) TMI 948 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186934</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed both appeals of the assessee, canceling the penalty orders. It held that the revised returns, treated as invalid, could not be the basis for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal found no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, considering the assessee&#039;s bona fide explanation and the debatable nature of the issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Oct 2016 17:42:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443719" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 948 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186934</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed both appeals of the assessee, canceling the penalty orders. It held that the revised returns, treated as invalid, could not be the basis for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal found no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, considering the assessee&#039;s bona fide explanation and the debatable nature of the issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186934</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>