<?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 (12) TMI 184 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371415</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, emphasizing that penalizing the assessee for both concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars was not justified. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, and the penalty was deleted as the Assessing Officer failed to specify the grounds for penalty initiation and levied penalty for both aspects, leading to an invalid penalty order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2018 08:59:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 184 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371415</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, emphasizing that penalizing the assessee for both concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars was not justified. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, and the penalty was deleted as the Assessing Officer failed to specify the grounds for penalty initiation and levied penalty for both aspects, leading to an invalid penalty order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371415</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>