<?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 (12) TMI 27 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389144</link>
    <description>The ITAT vacated penalties totaling Rs. 2,44,811/- imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) and sustained by the CIT(A), allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. The penalties were related to additions made to the income for various reasons including excess realization on account of exchange, disallowance of business promotion expenses, and interest on income tax refund. The ITAT found the explanations provided by the assessee plausible and not disproved by the revenue, setting aside the penalties in each instance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2019 16:16:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=595964" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 27 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389144</link>
      <description>The ITAT vacated penalties totaling Rs. 2,44,811/- imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) and sustained by the CIT(A), allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. The penalties were related to additions made to the income for various reasons including excess realization on account of exchange, disallowance of business promotion expenses, and interest on income tax refund. The ITAT found the explanations provided by the assessee plausible and not disproved by the revenue, setting aside the penalties in each instance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389144</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>