<?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 (7) TMI 30 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344918</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by the assessee, condoning the delay in filing the appeal, quashing the reassessment order due to invalid reopening, and setting aside the penalty order. The judgment emphasized the importance of a bona fide explanation for delays and the necessity for the AO to clearly state any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts when reopening assessments after four years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jul 2017 18:35:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=478413" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 30 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344918</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed both appeals filed by the assessee, condoning the delay in filing the appeal, quashing the reassessment order due to invalid reopening, and setting aside the penalty order. The judgment emphasized the importance of a bona fide explanation for delays and the necessity for the AO to clearly state any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts when reopening assessments after four years.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>