<?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>2019 (3) TMI 317 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376296</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was unjustified. It emphasized that disclosing all relevant details, even if claims are rejected, does not warrant penalties for concealment of income. The decision referenced legal precedents, including judgments by the Apex Court and the Bombay High Court, to support deleting the penalty imposed by revenue authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2019 06:49:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=561468" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 317 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376296</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was unjustified. It emphasized that disclosing all relevant details, even if claims are rejected, does not warrant penalties for concealment of income. The decision referenced legal precedents, including judgments by the Apex Court and the Bombay High Court, to support deleting the penalty imposed by revenue authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>