<?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>2009 (11) TMI 462 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78104</link>
    <description>The court allowed the appeal, favoring the Revenue, and remitted the case back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. It emphasized the importance of assessing the cause shown by the assessee before imposing penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal&#039;s failure to evaluate the acceptability of the explanation provided led to the cancellation of the penalty being deemed arbitrary and perverse.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116239" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (11) TMI 462 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78104</link>
      <description>The court allowed the appeal, favoring the Revenue, and remitted the case back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. It emphasized the importance of assessing the cause shown by the assessee before imposing penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal&#039;s failure to evaluate the acceptability of the explanation provided led to the cancellation of the penalty being deemed arbitrary and perverse.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78104</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>