<?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>2023 (2) TMI 570 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434055</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed all four appeals challenging penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2002-03. The penalty order was set aside due to defects in the penalty notices, with the Tribunal holding that the penalty proceedings were vitiated. The additional ground raised questioning the validity of the penalty notices was admitted, leading to the allowance of all appeals as the issues and facts were identical across the cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2023 12:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=704813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (2) TMI 570 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434055</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed all four appeals challenging penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2002-03. The penalty order was set aside due to defects in the penalty notices, with the Tribunal holding that the penalty proceedings were vitiated. The additional ground raised questioning the validity of the penalty notices was admitted, leading to the allowance of all appeals as the issues and facts were identical across the cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434055</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>