<?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>2014 (9) TMI 545 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251519</link>
    <description>The Punjab &amp; Haryana HC considered the levy of penalty for failure to furnish the Annual Information Return under section 271FA, including claims of reasonable cause under section 273B based on alleged lack of infrastructure and bona fide ignorance, and objections on limitation under section 275(1)(c) and natural justice. Relying on its earlier decision in connected matters, the Court dismissed the appeals on merits and upheld the penalty. The Court also did not accept the challenge that the levy rested on premature findings or investigations, and the limitation and procedural objections were not entertained as separate grounds for interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=365342" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 545 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251519</link>
      <description>The Punjab &amp; Haryana HC considered the levy of penalty for failure to furnish the Annual Information Return under section 271FA, including claims of reasonable cause under section 273B based on alleged lack of infrastructure and bona fide ignorance, and objections on limitation under section 275(1)(c) and natural justice. Relying on its earlier decision in connected matters, the Court dismissed the appeals on merits and upheld the penalty. The Court also did not accept the challenge that the levy rested on premature findings or investigations, and the limitation and procedural objections were not entertained as separate grounds for interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251519</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>