<?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>2010 (1) TMI 667 - ITAT, CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204877</link>
    <description>The ITAT dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the CIT(A)&#039;s order canceling the penalty imposed under section 221(1) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2006-07. The ITAT found that the penalty was unjustified due to the Assessing Officer&#039;s failure to provide a hearing, the good reasons for the default, and the pending appeal that could impact the demand amount. The decision emphasized the valid reasons for non-levy of the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 15:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178405" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 667 - ITAT, CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204877</link>
      <description>The ITAT dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the CIT(A)&#039;s order canceling the penalty imposed under section 221(1) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2006-07. The ITAT found that the penalty was unjustified due to the Assessing Officer&#039;s failure to provide a hearing, the good reasons for the default, and the pending appeal that could impact the demand amount. The decision emphasized the valid reasons for non-levy of the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204877</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>