<?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>2016 (11) TMI 1727 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304964</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found the penalty notice issued under section 271(1)(c) invalid as it did not specify whether it pertained to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of clear grounds for penalty imposition. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2022 08:00:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=695275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1727 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304964</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found the penalty notice issued under section 271(1)(c) invalid as it did not specify whether it pertained to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of clear grounds for penalty imposition. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>