<?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>2021 (2) TMI 574 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404082</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it found that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D was considered to be on a purely estimate basis, and the assessee had made complete disclosure of its claims in the return of income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2021 13:54:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=636388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 574 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404082</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it found that the assessee had not furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D was considered to be on a purely estimate basis, and the assessee had made complete disclosure of its claims in the return of income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>