<?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 (5) TMI 747 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407868</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271G of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that once the Transfer Pricing Officer accepted the Arm&#039;s Length Price under the Transactional Net Margin Method, the penalty for failure to furnish documentation was unjustified. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty, citing precedents where penalties were deleted under similar circumstances. The order was pronounced in open court on 12.03.2021.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 May 2021 14:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=645045" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 747 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407868</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271G of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal held that once the Transfer Pricing Officer accepted the Arm&#039;s Length Price under the Transactional Net Margin Method, the penalty for failure to furnish documentation was unjustified. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty, citing precedents where penalties were deleted under similar circumstances. The order was pronounced in open court on 12.03.2021.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>