<?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>1980 (10) TMI 122 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69286</link>
    <description>Penalty for delayed filing under section 271(1)(a) was found unwarranted where the assessee had filed the return voluntarily and the returned income was below the taxable minimum. The delay was explained as resulting from a bona fide belief that no return was required, based on the partners&#039; lack of education and absence of deliberate default. As the facts showed a genuine misconception rather than contumacious conduct, the penalty was cancelled in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 11:06:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107656" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (10) TMI 122 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69286</link>
      <description>Penalty for delayed filing under section 271(1)(a) was found unwarranted where the assessee had filed the return voluntarily and the returned income was below the taxable minimum. The delay was explained as resulting from a bona fide belief that no return was required, based on the partners&#039; lack of education and absence of deliberate default. As the facts showed a genuine misconception rather than contumacious conduct, the penalty was cancelled in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>