<?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 (4) TMI 468 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341498</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings initiated based on a defective notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were invalid and cancelled the penalty order. The judgment stressed the necessity of clear and specific notices in penalty proceedings, emphasizing the importance of complying with procedural requirements. The enhancement of penalty by the CIT(A) was deemed academic due to the invalidity of the initial penalty proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2017 07:31:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465468" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 468 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341498</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings initiated based on a defective notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act were invalid and cancelled the penalty order. The judgment stressed the necessity of clear and specific notices in penalty proceedings, emphasizing the importance of complying with procedural requirements. The enhancement of penalty by the CIT(A) was deemed academic due to the invalidity of the initial penalty proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341498</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>