<?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>2020 (8) TMI 92 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397149</link>
    <description>The Tribunal quashed the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) imposed for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income due to the Assessing Officer&#039;s failure to specify the exact charge in the penalty notice and the ambiguity in the assessment order. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty of Rs. 2,96,254 was directed to be deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2020 15:40:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619163" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 92 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397149</link>
      <description>The Tribunal quashed the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) imposed for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income due to the Assessing Officer&#039;s failure to specify the exact charge in the penalty notice and the ambiguity in the assessment order. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty of Rs. 2,96,254 was directed to be deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>