<?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 694 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328985</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty imposed under section 271E for violating Section 269T provisions. The decision emphasized that penalties should target black money, not genuine transactions, and authorities must exercise discretion judiciously. Citing precedents, the Tribunal found the genuine nature of transactions and reasonable cause for non-compliance, leading to the penalty deletion. The decision was based on legislative intent, judicial precedents, and the absence of intentional violations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2016 12:59:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432204" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 694 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328985</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty imposed under section 271E for violating Section 269T provisions. The decision emphasized that penalties should target black money, not genuine transactions, and authorities must exercise discretion judiciously. Citing precedents, the Tribunal found the genuine nature of transactions and reasonable cause for non-compliance, leading to the penalty deletion. The decision was based on legislative intent, judicial precedents, and the absence of intentional violations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328985</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>