<?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 567 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341597</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by the assessee, setting aside the disallowance of Portfolio Management fees and remanding the Section 14A issue for re-examination. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted, as the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable due to the debatable nature of the issue and the absence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2017 16:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 567 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341597</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by the assessee, setting aside the disallowance of Portfolio Management fees and remanding the Section 14A issue for re-examination. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was also deleted, as the Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable due to the debatable nature of the issue and the absence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.</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=341597</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>