<?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>2024 (9) TMI 1628 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759384</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeals of two non-resident companies against the levy of penalty under Section 271G for non-furnishing of documents. The Tribunal found no evidence of inaccurate information, lack of bonafides, or unreasonable conduct by the assessees. Consequently, the penalties were deemed unwarranted and were deleted, with the Tribunal relying on relevant legal precedents and specific case facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Sep 2024 13:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771096" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 1628 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759384</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeals of two non-resident companies against the levy of penalty under Section 271G for non-furnishing of documents. The Tribunal found no evidence of inaccurate information, lack of bonafides, or unreasonable conduct by the assessees. Consequently, the penalties were deemed unwarranted and were deleted, with the Tribunal relying on relevant legal precedents and specific case facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759384</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>