<?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>1986 (10) TMI 86 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65041</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the assessee for a delayed return filing for the assessment year 1978-79. Despite the assessee providing various reasons for the delay, including staff changes and ongoing audits, the Tribunal deemed them insufficient. The burden of proof for showing a reasonable cause for delay was placed on the revenue, and in this case, the Tribunal found that the assessee, a large public limited company, was aware of its obligations but failed to provide a valid reason for the delay. The Tribunal also rejected arguments related to interest charged under section 139(8) and the non-issuance of a notice under section 139(2), ultimately upholding the penalty imposed by the ITO.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:12:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103481" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (10) TMI 86 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65041</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the assessee for a delayed return filing for the assessment year 1978-79. Despite the assessee providing various reasons for the delay, including staff changes and ongoing audits, the Tribunal deemed them insufficient. The burden of proof for showing a reasonable cause for delay was placed on the revenue, and in this case, the Tribunal found that the assessee, a large public limited company, was aware of its obligations but failed to provide a valid reason for the delay. The Tribunal also rejected arguments related to interest charged under section 139(8) and the non-issuance of a notice under section 139(2), ultimately upholding the penalty imposed by the ITO.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65041</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>