<?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 (7) TMI 1208 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440935</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee, challenging the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2010-11. The Tribunal found the penalty proceedings were flawed as the Assessing Officer did not specify the nature of the penalty in the notices issued, leading to the quashing of the penalty order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jul 2023 08:11:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=720900" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (7) TMI 1208 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440935</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee, challenging the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2010-11. The Tribunal found the penalty proceedings were flawed as the Assessing Officer did not specify the nature of the penalty in the notices issued, leading to the quashing of the penalty order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>