<?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 (10) TMI 431 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333411</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s order deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made a bonafide claim based on expert advice, disclosed all particulars, and provided explanations that were not found to be false. The penalty was deemed not applicable under the circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2016 09:42:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444506" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 431 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333411</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the CIT(A)&#039;s order deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made a bonafide claim based on expert advice, disclosed all particulars, and provided explanations that were not found to be false. The penalty was deemed not applicable under the circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333411</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>