<?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 (6) TMI 359 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328650</link>
    <description>The Court set aside the imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000 by the Settlement Commission on the Petitioner for a dispute over the classification of their activity. The Court found the penalty unjustified due to the Petitioner&#039;s genuine compliance efforts and lack of intent to evade taxes. The penalty was ordered to be refunded within one month, emphasizing the absence of fraudulent intent in the Petitioner&#039;s tax dealings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2016 13:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431096" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 359 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328650</link>
      <description>The Court set aside the imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000 by the Settlement Commission on the Petitioner for a dispute over the classification of their activity. The Court found the penalty unjustified due to the Petitioner&#039;s genuine compliance efforts and lack of intent to evade taxes. The penalty was ordered to be refunded within one month, emphasizing the absence of fraudulent intent in the Petitioner&#039;s tax dealings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>