<?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>2016 (3) TMI 112 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272300</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was not sustainable due to a defective notice issued under Section 274. The notice failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the penalty due to the primary issue of the defective notice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:07:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=418937" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 112 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272300</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was not sustainable due to a defective notice issued under Section 274. The notice failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the penalty due to the primary issue of the defective notice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272300</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>