<?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 (7) TMI 863 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425308</link>
    <description>The Tribunal quashed the penalty imposed by the CIT(A) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for A.Y. 2012-13. The decision was influenced by legal precedents and emphasized the importance of proper satisfaction for imposing penalties. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty of Rs. 2,81,51,400/- due to the debatable nature of the issues involved and the lack of proper satisfaction recorded for imposing penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2022 09:24:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=685544" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 863 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425308</link>
      <description>The Tribunal quashed the penalty imposed by the CIT(A) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for A.Y. 2012-13. The decision was influenced by legal precedents and emphasized the importance of proper satisfaction for imposing penalties. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty of Rs. 2,81,51,400/- due to the debatable nature of the issues involved and the lack of proper satisfaction recorded for imposing penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425308</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>