<?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 (12) TMI 258 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351989</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete penalties, emphasizing the necessity of specifying the charge when initiating penalty proceedings. It reiterated that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are distinct charges that must be clearly stated. The Revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed, confirming the deletion of penalties for the relevant assessment years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:03:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 258 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351989</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete penalties, emphasizing the necessity of specifying the charge when initiating penalty proceedings. It reiterated that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are distinct charges that must be clearly stated. The Revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed, confirming the deletion of penalties for the relevant assessment years.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351989</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>