<?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>2019 (1) TMI 288 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373123</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2012-13. The penalty was contested on the grounds that the assessing officer failed to specify the exact charge for which the penalty was imposed, leading to the penalty being deemed unsustainable. As the nature of the offense was not adequately recorded, the Tribunal set aside the penalty, ruling in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2019 12:25:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=551475" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 288 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373123</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2012-13. The penalty was contested on the grounds that the assessing officer failed to specify the exact charge for which the penalty was imposed, leading to the penalty being deemed unsustainable. As the nature of the offense was not adequately recorded, the Tribunal set aside the penalty, ruling in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373123</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>