<?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>2022 (5) TMI 1700 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465414</link>
    <description>A penalty order under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act could not be sustained where the assessment order was already the subject of a pending appeal under Section 246A. Section 275 bars passing a penalty order in such circumstances, and the record showed that the appeal had in fact been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). On that basis, the penalty proceedings could not be concluded by the impugned order, which was quashed and set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2025 22:28:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=873086" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 1700 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465414</link>
      <description>A penalty order under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act could not be sustained where the assessment order was already the subject of a pending appeal under Section 246A. Section 275 bars passing a penalty order in such circumstances, and the record showed that the appeal had in fact been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). On that basis, the penalty proceedings could not be concluded by the impugned order, which was quashed and set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465414</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>