<?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>2013 (8) TMI 565 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236273</link>
    <description>The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeal against penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Act. The case involved a Real Estate Agent who paid tax and interest upon detection by the audit, claiming lack of intent to evade payment. The Commissioner considered the immediate tax payment, lack of malafide intent, and individual circumstances in applying Section 80, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Aug 2013 10:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198680" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 565 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236273</link>
      <description>The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeal against penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Act. The case involved a Real Estate Agent who paid tax and interest upon detection by the audit, claiming lack of intent to evade payment. The Commissioner considered the immediate tax payment, lack of malafide intent, and individual circumstances in applying Section 80, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236273</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>