<?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>2011 (7) TMI 709 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210789</link>
    <description>The court upheld the penalty imposed on the petitioner under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act for delay in filing the audit report. Despite the petitioner&#039;s explanation attributing the delay to their accountant&#039;s misconduct, the court found the lack of evidence supporting this claim. Emphasizing the petitioner&#039;s duty to ensure timely filing and the significant delay of almost eight months, the court deemed the petitioner&#039;s conduct contumacious, justifying the penalty imposition of Rs. 44,831/-. The court dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner&#039;s failure to provide adequate evidence and establish a valid reason for the delay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184222" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 709 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210789</link>
      <description>The court upheld the penalty imposed on the petitioner under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act for delay in filing the audit report. Despite the petitioner&#039;s explanation attributing the delay to their accountant&#039;s misconduct, the court found the lack of evidence supporting this claim. Emphasizing the petitioner&#039;s duty to ensure timely filing and the significant delay of almost eight months, the court deemed the petitioner&#039;s conduct contumacious, justifying the penalty imposition of Rs. 44,831/-. The court dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner&#039;s failure to provide adequate evidence and establish a valid reason for the delay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210789</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>