<?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 838 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329129</link>
    <description>The tribunal found the show cause notice defective for not specifying the penalty grounds clearly, leading to ambiguity. Citing precedent, it emphasized the need for specificity in penalty notices. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed invalid, and the appeal was allowed, canceling the penalty orders. The decision highlighted the significance of clarity in penalty notices to uphold natural justice principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:05:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 838 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329129</link>
      <description>The tribunal found the show cause notice defective for not specifying the penalty grounds clearly, leading to ambiguity. Citing precedent, it emphasized the need for specificity in penalty notices. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was deemed invalid, and the appeal was allowed, canceling the penalty orders. The decision highlighted the significance of clarity in penalty notices to uphold natural justice principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>