<?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 762 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397819</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, deleting penalties under section 271G of the Income Tax Act. It found the assessee had adequately maintained documentation, responded to queries, and the notice issued lacked specificity. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal concluded penalties were unwarranted, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s decision and ruling in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2020 12:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=620964" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 762 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397819</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, deleting penalties under section 271G of the Income Tax Act. It found the assessee had adequately maintained documentation, responded to queries, and the notice issued lacked specificity. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal concluded penalties were unwarranted, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s decision and ruling in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397819</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>