<?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 (6) TMI 50 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395675</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessee had a bona fide belief and had disclosed all necessary details. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was directed to be deleted. Additionally, the Tribunal acknowledged the procedural adjustments necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring compliance with judicial guidelines.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2020 03:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=614198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 50 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395675</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the assessee had a bona fide belief and had disclosed all necessary details. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was directed to be deleted. Additionally, the Tribunal acknowledged the procedural adjustments necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring compliance with judicial guidelines.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>