<?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 1123 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347065</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the penalty notices issued were vague as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This lack of specificity invalidated the penalty proceedings. As a result, the penalty orders were quashed, and the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2017 10:01:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1123 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347065</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the penalty notices issued were vague as they did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This lack of specificity invalidated the penalty proceedings. As a result, the penalty orders were quashed, and the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>