<?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 296 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341326</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was justified. The decision was based on the assessee&#039;s full disclosure of income particulars, the debatable nature of the issue as indicated by the High Court&#039;s admission of the quantum appeal, and the lack of proper satisfaction by the Assessing Officer for penalty proceedings. Consequently, the penalty was directed to be deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Apr 2017 07:32:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=464954" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 296 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341326</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was justified. The decision was based on the assessee&#039;s full disclosure of income particulars, the debatable nature of the issue as indicated by the High Court&#039;s admission of the quantum appeal, and the lack of proper satisfaction by the Assessing Officer for penalty proceedings. Consequently, the penalty was directed to be deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>