<?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 (7) TMI 172 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382476</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was unsustainable due to a defective notice that failed to specify the exact charge. Consequently, the penalty was set aside, and the CIT(A)&#039;s order confirming the penalty was deleted. The appeal by the assessee was allowed solely on the grounds of the defective notice, without delving into the merits of the case. The penalty was deleted, and the order was pronounced on June 26, 2019.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2019 18:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=577579" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 172 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382476</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was unsustainable due to a defective notice that failed to specify the exact charge. Consequently, the penalty was set aside, and the CIT(A)&#039;s order confirming the penalty was deleted. The appeal by the assessee was allowed solely on the grounds of the defective notice, without delving into the merits of the case. The penalty was deleted, and the order was pronounced on June 26, 2019.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>