<?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 736 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358625</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty of 12,000 imposed under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found the penalty unwarranted, emphasizing the need for conclusive evidence in penalty proceedings and distinguishing between assessment and penalty imposition. The decision was influenced by previous tribunal rulings favoring the assessee in similar cases, leading to the overturning of the CIT(A)&#039;s order upholding the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2018 10:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516989" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 736 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358625</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty of 12,000 imposed under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found the penalty unwarranted, emphasizing the need for conclusive evidence in penalty proceedings and distinguishing between assessment and penalty imposition. The decision was influenced by previous tribunal rulings favoring the assessee in similar cases, leading to the overturning of the CIT(A)&#039;s order upholding the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>