<?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 (5) TMI 1452 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274870</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) invalid due to a defective show-cause notice that did not specify the grounds for the penalty. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty order of Rs. 3,15,282/- was canceled. The judgment highlighted the importance of clarity and specificity in penalty proceedings to uphold principles of natural justice. The decision was rendered on May 13, 2016.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2018 08:05:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=533570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 1452 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274870</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) invalid due to a defective show-cause notice that did not specify the grounds for the penalty. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty order of Rs. 3,15,282/- was canceled. The judgment highlighted the importance of clarity and specificity in penalty proceedings to uphold principles of natural justice. The decision was rendered on May 13, 2016.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274870</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>