<?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>2018 (1) TMI 672 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353936</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act invalid due to the Assessing Officer&#039;s failure to specify the charge in the penalty notice, rendering the initiation improper. As a result, the penalty was deleted, the assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed. Other arguments regarding full disclosure, debatability of the issue, tax neutrality, and lack of motive were not addressed due to the initial ruling on the notice&#039;s deficiency.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:43:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504451" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 672 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353936</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act invalid due to the Assessing Officer&#039;s failure to specify the charge in the penalty notice, rendering the initiation improper. As a result, the penalty was deleted, the assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed. Other arguments regarding full disclosure, debatability of the issue, tax neutrality, and lack of motive were not addressed due to the initial ruling on the notice&#039;s deficiency.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353936</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>