<?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 (6) TMI 102 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753495</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, as the addition was based on estimation without clear proof of concealment or inaccurate particulars. The penalty was deemed unjustified, and the legal issue concerning the defective notice for initiating penalty proceedings was left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2024 08:04:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 102 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753495</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, as the addition was based on estimation without clear proof of concealment or inaccurate particulars. The penalty was deemed unjustified, and the legal issue concerning the defective notice for initiating penalty proceedings was left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>