<?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>2000 (4) TMI 189 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71572</link>
    <description>Failure to maintain books of account attracts penalty under section 271A, and the audit obligation under section 44AB presupposes existing books capable of being audited. Where the assessee had already been penalised for non-maintenance of books, the same factual default could not be again treated as a separate breach under section 271B. The penalty under section 271B was therefore not sustainable and was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:10:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 189 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71572</link>
      <description>Failure to maintain books of account attracts penalty under section 271A, and the audit obligation under section 44AB presupposes existing books capable of being audited. Where the assessee had already been penalised for non-maintenance of books, the same factual default could not be again treated as a separate breach under section 271B. The penalty under section 271B was therefore not sustainable and was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71572</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>