<?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>2012 (4) TMI 300 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212431</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 271B for delay in filing the audit report under section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Despite the availability of the audit report before completing the assessment, the Tribunal found the explanations provided by the assessee unconvincing. Emphasizing the importance of compliance with established laws, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and supported the assessing authority&#039;s decision to levy the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185842" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 300 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212431</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 271B for delay in filing the audit report under section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Despite the availability of the audit report before completing the assessment, the Tribunal found the explanations provided by the assessee unconvincing. Emphasizing the importance of compliance with established laws, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and supported the assessing authority&#039;s decision to levy the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212431</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>