<?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>2026 (4) TMI 275 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789206</link>
    <description>Section 264 revisional power is available against a penalty order even though an appeal also lies, unless the case falls within the express bars in sub-section (4); the assessee may choose between appeal under Section 246A and revision, so refusal to entertain revision solely for availability of appeal was unjustified. Penalty under Section 270A for under-reporting was also unsustainable because the same disallowance had already been reflected at the Section 143(1)(a) processing stage, the statutory ingredients of under-reporting were not met, and the claim was based on a debatable jurisdictional position with full disclosure and bona fide explanation. The penalty order was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Apr 2026 08:53:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=894953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 275 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789206</link>
      <description>Section 264 revisional power is available against a penalty order even though an appeal also lies, unless the case falls within the express bars in sub-section (4); the assessee may choose between appeal under Section 246A and revision, so refusal to entertain revision solely for availability of appeal was unjustified. Penalty under Section 270A for under-reporting was also unsustainable because the same disallowance had already been reflected at the Section 143(1)(a) processing stage, the statutory ingredients of under-reporting were not met, and the claim was based on a debatable jurisdictional position with full disclosure and bona fide explanation. The penalty order was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>