<?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 (10) TMI 304 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759705</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, deleting the penalty of Rs. 8,24,413 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty was unsustainable as the disallowance of depreciation was based on estimation, not on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The decision relied on precedents distinguishing similar cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Oct 2024 09:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771930" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 304 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759705</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, deleting the penalty of Rs. 8,24,413 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty was unsustainable as the disallowance of depreciation was based on estimation, not on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The decision relied on precedents distinguishing similar cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759705</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>