<?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 (10) TMI 44 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348889</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals for both assessment years as the penalty notices were deemed invalid due to non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the penalty orders were set aside without further consideration of other issues raised by the assessee, as the primary ground sufficed to decide the appeals. The principle of consistency was maintained for the subsequent assessment year, leading to the allowance of both appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2017 06:33:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491143" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 44 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348889</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals for both assessment years as the penalty notices were deemed invalid due to non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the penalty orders were set aside without further consideration of other issues raised by the assessee, as the primary ground sufficed to decide the appeals. The principle of consistency was maintained for the subsequent assessment year, leading to the allowance of both appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>