<?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>2015 (5) TMI 1089 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189732</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that a mere change in the head of income does not warrant automatic penalty imposition for concealment of income. The Tribunal referenced legal interpretations and precedents to differentiate between income treatment and actual concealment, ultimately dismissing the appeal filed by the AO.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2017 21:00:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455730" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 1089 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189732</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that a mere change in the head of income does not warrant automatic penalty imposition for concealment of income. The Tribunal referenced legal interpretations and precedents to differentiate between income treatment and actual concealment, ultimately dismissing the appeal filed by the AO.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189732</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>