<?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>2023 (1) TMI 172 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432425</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal found that the appellant rectified the computation error in good faith and without any intention to provide inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty was directed to be deleted as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:26:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=700737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (1) TMI 172 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432425</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal found that the appellant rectified the computation error in good faith and without any intention to provide inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty was directed to be deleted as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>