<?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>2016 (3) TMI 1024 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325840</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Departmental appeals as non-maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed limit. It allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals, quashing the penalties under section 271(1)(c) due to lack of specificity in the charges framed by the AO. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of clearly specifying grounds for penalties in upholding natural justice principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:11:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421775" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1024 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325840</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Departmental appeals as non-maintainable due to the tax effect being below the prescribed limit. It allowed the assessee&#039;s appeals, quashing the penalties under section 271(1)(c) due to lack of specificity in the charges framed by the AO. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of clearly specifying grounds for penalties in upholding natural justice principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>