<?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 1282 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353013</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the assessing officer failed to properly record satisfaction for initiating and imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in the assessment order. It was concluded that without such explicit direction, the penalty was liable to be deleted. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, highlighting the inadequacy in recording satisfaction for penalty initiation and the debatable nature of the issues, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Dec 2017 08:47:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501244" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1282 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353013</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the assessing officer failed to properly record satisfaction for initiating and imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in the assessment order. It was concluded that without such explicit direction, the penalty was liable to be deleted. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, highlighting the inadequacy in recording satisfaction for penalty initiation and the debatable nature of the issues, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353013</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>