<?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 (11) TMI 108 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350229</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and directing the AO to delete the penalty. The decision was based on the ambiguity in the penalty notice, emphasizing that an unsustainable claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of clear and specific penalty notices to adhere to the principles of natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2017 07:54:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494377" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 108 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350229</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and directing the AO to delete the penalty. The decision was based on the ambiguity in the penalty notice, emphasizing that an unsustainable claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of clear and specific penalty notices to adhere to the principles of natural justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>