<?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>2018 (1) TMI 337 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353601</link>
    <description>The Bombay High Court upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on a company for inaccurately claiming an exemption under Section 54. The court emphasized that penalties apply when inaccurate particulars are furnished, as seen in this case where the claim was prohibited under the Act. The court dismissed the challenge to the penalty, noting the absence of evidence supporting a bona fide mistake and highlighting the importance of complying with statutory provisions to avoid penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2018 10:21:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503553" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 337 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353601</link>
      <description>The Bombay High Court upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on a company for inaccurately claiming an exemption under Section 54. The court emphasized that penalties apply when inaccurate particulars are furnished, as seen in this case where the claim was prohibited under the Act. The court dismissed the challenge to the penalty, noting the absence of evidence supporting a bona fide mistake and highlighting the importance of complying with statutory provisions to avoid penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>