<?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 (3) TMI 1459 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377438</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, ordering the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to provide conclusive evidence to support the penalty, and procedural defects in the penalty notice were noted. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had provided explanations and maintained stock records, leading to the decision to delete the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2019 10:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=564621" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 1459 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377438</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, ordering the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to provide conclusive evidence to support the penalty, and procedural defects in the penalty notice were noted. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had provided explanations and maintained stock records, leading to the decision to delete the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377438</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>