<?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>2016 (7) TMI 1421 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199958</link>
    <description>The tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act as the Assessing Officer failed to specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty order lacked clarity, rendering it invalid. The tribunal emphasized the necessity of a specific charge for imposing penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and deleted the penalty, allowing the appeal of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 08:27:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1421 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199958</link>
      <description>The tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act as the Assessing Officer failed to specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty order lacked clarity, rendering it invalid. The tribunal emphasized the necessity of a specific charge for imposing penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and deleted the penalty, allowing the appeal of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199958</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>