<?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>2010 (8) TMI 1054 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187001</link>
    <description>The Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed under section 271B of the Act on a firm for the delay in filing its income tax return for the assessment year 2006-07. The delay was attributed to various factors such as the sudden demise of a partner, partners&#039; travel, and firm reconstitution, leading to cascading effects from previous years. The Tribunal found no deliberate or intentional inaction by the firm and exercised discretionary leniency, overturning the penalty upheld by the CIT(A) in the interest of justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2016 13:05:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443946" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 1054 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187001</link>
      <description>The Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed under section 271B of the Act on a firm for the delay in filing its income tax return for the assessment year 2006-07. The delay was attributed to various factors such as the sudden demise of a partner, partners&#039; travel, and firm reconstitution, leading to cascading effects from previous years. The Tribunal found no deliberate or intentional inaction by the firm and exercised discretionary leniency, overturning the penalty upheld by the CIT(A) in the interest of justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>