<?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 (6) TMI 780 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344509</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was unjustified. The Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed all income particulars and claimed exemption under a bona fide belief, supported by relevant legal precedents. It was determined that the incorrect legal claim did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income when the information provided was not inaccurate. As a result, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2017 07:04:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=473470" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 780 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344509</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was unjustified. The Tribunal found that the assessee had disclosed all income particulars and claimed exemption under a bona fide belief, supported by relevant legal precedents. It was determined that the incorrect legal claim did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income when the information provided was not inaccurate. As a result, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344509</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>