<?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>2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188918</link>
    <description>HC held that the Tribunal correctly allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, holding the penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) to be invalid for failing to specify whether proceedings were for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. As the issue is covered by existing Division Bench precedent, HC found no substantial question of law and decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2025 13:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452301" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188918</link>
      <description>HC held that the Tribunal correctly allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, holding the penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) to be invalid for failing to specify whether proceedings were for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. As the issue is covered by existing Division Bench precedent, HC found no substantial question of law and decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>