<?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>2017 (2) TMI 403 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338703</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)&#039; decision to delete the penalty of Rs. 15,03,270 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2008-09. The Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the CIT(A)&#039;s ruling, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The penalty on the disallowance of gratuity payment and depreciation on investment was deemed unjustified and deleted by the CIT(A) and Co-ordinate Bench, respectively, citing lack of evidence and debatable nature of the issues. The Revenue could potentially impose the penalty again if the disallowance is upheld after a fresh decision on investment depreciation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2017 13:05:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 403 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338703</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)&#039; decision to delete the penalty of Rs. 15,03,270 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2008-09. The Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the CIT(A)&#039;s ruling, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The penalty on the disallowance of gratuity payment and depreciation on investment was deemed unjustified and deleted by the CIT(A) and Co-ordinate Bench, respectively, citing lack of evidence and debatable nature of the issues. The Revenue could potentially impose the penalty again if the disallowance is upheld after a fresh decision on investment depreciation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338703</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>