<?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>1989 (2) TMI 171 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69532</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the assessee had valid reasons for the delay in audit due to a partner&#039;s illness and first-year audit challenges. As the firm had informed the tax authorities and sought an extension, the penalty under Section 271B was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal emphasized the need to interpret &quot;reasonable cause&quot; liberally to serve justice, ultimately canceling the penalty and allowing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:53:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (2) TMI 171 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69532</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the assessee had valid reasons for the delay in audit due to a partner&#039;s illness and first-year audit challenges. As the firm had informed the tax authorities and sought an extension, the penalty under Section 271B was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal emphasized the need to interpret &quot;reasonable cause&quot; liberally to serve justice, ultimately canceling the penalty and allowing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>