<?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>2024 (3) TMI 1073 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451292</link>
    <description>The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable as it was based solely on estimations of alleged bogus purchases. Additionally, the penalty notice was deemed defective for not specifying the applicable limb, rendering the proceedings invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Mar 2024 08:25:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=748027" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 1073 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451292</link>
      <description>The ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found the penalty unsustainable as it was based solely on estimations of alleged bogus purchases. Additionally, the penalty notice was deemed defective for not specifying the applicable limb, rendering the proceedings invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451292</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>