<?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>1981 (6) TMI 100 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69808</link>
    <description>Penalty for alleged failure to furnish an advance tax estimate was not sustainable on a bare assumption of non-filing where the assessee produced material indicating that Form No. 29 had been filed. The existing finding could not be treated as conclusive without proper verification of that evidence, so the penalty order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication. The revenue was to be given a fair opportunity to contest the evidence before the Income-tax Officer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:59:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (6) TMI 100 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69808</link>
      <description>Penalty for alleged failure to furnish an advance tax estimate was not sustainable on a bare assumption of non-filing where the assessee produced material indicating that Form No. 29 had been filed. The existing finding could not be treated as conclusive without proper verification of that evidence, so the penalty order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication. The revenue was to be given a fair opportunity to contest the evidence before the Income-tax Officer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>