<?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>2012 (6) TMI 291 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213971</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, ruling that the penalty order was time-barred under Section 275(1)(a). It found no deliberate concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The disallowance of losses was deemed a legal interpretation issue, not warranting a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal emphasized adherence to judicial precedents and natural justice principles in penalty proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 13:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187371" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 291 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213971</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, ruling that the penalty order was time-barred under Section 275(1)(a). It found no deliberate concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The disallowance of losses was deemed a legal interpretation issue, not warranting a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal emphasized adherence to judicial precedents and natural justice principles in penalty proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213971</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>