<?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>2013 (7) TMI 935 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176345</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive because it was founded on a quantum addition that had already been set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Once the basis of the penalty no longer subsisted, the Revenue could not sustain the levy at that stage, and the penalty was deleted. The Assessing Officer was, however, left free to consider initiation of penalty proceedings again after the fresh assessment, in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2015 16:52:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=409785" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 935 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176345</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive because it was founded on a quantum addition that had already been set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Once the basis of the penalty no longer subsisted, the Revenue could not sustain the levy at that stage, and the penalty was deleted. The Assessing Officer was, however, left free to consider initiation of penalty proceedings again after the fresh assessment, in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>