<?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 (12) TMI 316 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389433</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee, as the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was deemed invalid due to deficiencies in the penalty notice. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of clearly specifying the charge for a penalty order to be valid, setting aside the penalty and directing its deletion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Dec 2019 15:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=596586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 316 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389433</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee, as the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was deemed invalid due to deficiencies in the penalty notice. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of clearly specifying the charge for a penalty order to be valid, setting aside the penalty and directing its deletion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>