<?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 (4) TMI 39 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357928</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act invalid due to the lack of specificity in the notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The ambiguity in the charge and failure to specify whether the penalty was for &quot;concealment of income&quot; or &quot;furnishing inaccurate particulars of income&quot; rendered the penalty proceedings invalid. Consequently, the penalty imposed was deleted, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2018 09:05:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=515544" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 39 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357928</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act invalid due to the lack of specificity in the notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The ambiguity in the charge and failure to specify whether the penalty was for &quot;concealment of income&quot; or &quot;furnishing inaccurate particulars of income&quot; rendered the penalty proceedings invalid. Consequently, the penalty imposed was deleted, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>