<?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>2017 (3) TMI 1982 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471058</link>
    <description>Penalty for failure to obtain a tax audit was not sustainable where the assessee bona fide believed that the audit threshold for share transactions had to be determined by the net amount of purchases and sales. The explanation was not doubted by the income-tax authorities but was rejected without adequate consideration. The bona fide belief provided sufficient basis to mitigate the rigour of penalty, resulting in deletion of the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 18:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=917845" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1982 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471058</link>
      <description>Penalty for failure to obtain a tax audit was not sustainable where the assessee bona fide believed that the audit threshold for share transactions had to be determined by the net amount of purchases and sales. The explanation was not doubted by the income-tax authorities but was rejected without adequate consideration. The bona fide belief provided sufficient basis to mitigate the rigour of penalty, resulting in deletion of the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471058</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>