<?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 886 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333866</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s decision and directed the AO to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on the assessee. The Tribunal found that the provision for detention and demurrage charges was based on a scientific method and genuinely disclosed by the assessee, thus not warranting a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was deemed unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2016 09:48:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 886 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333866</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s decision and directed the AO to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on the assessee. The Tribunal found that the provision for detention and demurrage charges was based on a scientific method and genuinely disclosed by the assessee, thus not warranting a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was deemed unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>