<?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 (4) TMI 236 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341266</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and directed the AO to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made under Section 68, based on legal fiction, did not justify a penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2017 07:06:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=464828" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 236 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341266</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and directed the AO to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made under Section 68, based on legal fiction, did not justify a penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>