<?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>2010 (10) TMI 1225 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298174</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive because it was founded on a disallowance of advertisement and sales promotion expenses that had already been deleted in the assessee&#039;s own case. With the underlying addition no longer in existence, the basis for levy of penalty ceased to exist, and cancellation of the penalty was upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Oct 2021 15:08:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=658822" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 1225 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298174</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive because it was founded on a disallowance of advertisement and sales promotion expenses that had already been deleted in the assessee&#039;s own case. With the underlying addition no longer in existence, the basis for levy of penalty ceased to exist, and cancellation of the penalty was upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298174</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>