<?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>2014 (7) TMI 258 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249221</link>
    <description>The penalty for the assessment year 2005-06 was quashed due to procedural non-compliance, as the penalty order lacked the required prior approval. For the assessment year 2006-07, the penalty was canceled based on the bonafide explanation provided by the assessee regarding unexplained cash deposits. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed in both cases, with the legal representative of the deceased assessee being allowed to represent and present the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2014 08:50:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=359003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 258 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249221</link>
      <description>The penalty for the assessment year 2005-06 was quashed due to procedural non-compliance, as the penalty order lacked the required prior approval. For the assessment year 2006-07, the penalty was canceled based on the bonafide explanation provided by the assessee regarding unexplained cash deposits. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed in both cases, with the legal representative of the deceased assessee being allowed to represent and present the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249221</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>