<?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>2020 (1) TMI 818 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391205</link>
    <description>The tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 271E of the IT Act was not sustainable in the case involving transactions between close relatives. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and directed the AO to delete the penalty, emphasizing that family transactions without commercial intent should not attract penalties under Sections 271D and 271E. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was ultimately deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2020 08:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601121" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 818 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391205</link>
      <description>The tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 271E of the IT Act was not sustainable in the case involving transactions between close relatives. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and directed the AO to delete the penalty, emphasizing that family transactions without commercial intent should not attract penalties under Sections 271D and 271E. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was ultimately deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391205</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>