<?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 (11) TMI 205 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239028</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 272A(2)(k) of the I.T. Act was not justified as the delay in filing E-TDS returns was due to practical difficulties and not intentional default. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty proceedings require consideration of mens rea and should not be imposed in cases of non-deliberate delays. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty imposed on the assessee was canceled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2017 18:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 205 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239028</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 272A(2)(k) of the I.T. Act was not justified as the delay in filing E-TDS returns was due to practical difficulties and not intentional default. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty proceedings require consideration of mens rea and should not be imposed in cases of non-deliberate delays. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty imposed on the assessee was canceled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239028</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>