<?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 (8) TMI 639 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346581</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the specific charge for which the penalty was levied, as required by law. As the AO did not establish the concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal was allowed on 10th August 2017.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2017 08:20:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485888" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 639 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346581</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the specific charge for which the penalty was levied, as required by law. As the AO did not establish the concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal was allowed on 10th August 2017.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>