<?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 (10) TMI 441 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217503</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the transactions between the parties did not render the assessee liable for penalties under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that the nature of the transactions and the specific circumstances of the case did not warrant the imposition of penalties, ultimately setting aside the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190878" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 441 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217503</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the transactions between the parties did not render the assessee liable for penalties under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that the nature of the transactions and the specific circumstances of the case did not warrant the imposition of penalties, ultimately setting aside the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>