<?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>2017 (1) TMI 740 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337660</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the penalty of Rs. 14,53,833/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It found the assessee&#039;s explanation for the undisclosed income plausible and highlighted procedural flaws in the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, concluding that the penalty was not sustainable due to the procedural inconsistency. The order was pronounced on 11th January 2017.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:09:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 740 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337660</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the penalty of Rs. 14,53,833/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It found the assessee&#039;s explanation for the undisclosed income plausible and highlighted procedural flaws in the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, concluding that the penalty was not sustainable due to the procedural inconsistency. The order was pronounced on 11th January 2017.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>