<?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>2022 (1) TMI 1202 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417737</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty levy under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2003-04, as the penalty order dated 30.08.2012 was deemed time-barred under section 275(1)(a) due to the insertion of a proviso in 2003, setting a specific time frame for passing penalty orders. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of adhering to statutory timelines for imposing penalties, rendering further discussion on other grounds unnecessary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2022 07:20:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=668629" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 1202 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417737</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty levy under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2003-04, as the penalty order dated 30.08.2012 was deemed time-barred under section 275(1)(a) due to the insertion of a proviso in 2003, setting a specific time frame for passing penalty orders. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of adhering to statutory timelines for imposing penalties, rendering further discussion on other grounds unnecessary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>