<?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 (7) TMI 1482 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364174</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s Cross Objections after condoning a 5-day delay. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for interest income was deleted as the assessee had disclosed and offered the income for taxation. The penalty notice was deemed defective for not specifying the default, leading to its cancellation. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the Cross Objections were allowed in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2018 08:52:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=528043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1482 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364174</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s Cross Objections after condoning a 5-day delay. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for interest income was deleted as the assessee had disclosed and offered the income for taxation. The penalty notice was deemed defective for not specifying the default, leading to its cancellation. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the Cross Objections were allowed in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364174</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>