<?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 (11) TMI 448 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334430</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) for two assessment years, emphasizing the distinction between assessment and penalty proceedings. It ruled that penalties cannot be imposed solely on estimation basis without concrete evidence, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, providing relief to the assessees by overturning the penalty orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 448 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334430</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) for two assessment years, emphasizing the distinction between assessment and penalty proceedings. It ruled that penalties cannot be imposed solely on estimation basis without concrete evidence, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, providing relief to the assessees by overturning the penalty orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334430</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>