<?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 (11) TMI 1820 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280797</link>
    <description>The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee had disclosed the loan in the balance sheet for the first time in the relevant assessment year. The explanation provided by the assessee was deemed bona fide, and the deeming fiction under Section 2(22)(e) was not extended to the penalty provisions. Consequently, the appeal by the assessee was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2019 06:17:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=572120" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1820 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280797</link>
      <description>The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee had disclosed the loan in the balance sheet for the first time in the relevant assessment year. The explanation provided by the assessee was deemed bona fide, and the deeming fiction under Section 2(22)(e) was not extended to the penalty provisions. Consequently, the appeal by the assessee was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>