<?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 (12) TMI 1238 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336593</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, quashing the penalty proceedings due to an invalid notice and an improper basis for the penalty. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of clear and specific charges in the penalty notice for a fair hearing. The enhancement of the penalty by the CIT(A) from 100% to 150% was deemed unjustified as it was based on a different interpretation of the transactions than the original penalty proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Dec 2016 07:56:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452786" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1238 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336593</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, quashing the penalty proceedings due to an invalid notice and an improper basis for the penalty. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of clear and specific charges in the penalty notice for a fair hearing. The enhancement of the penalty by the CIT(A) from 100% to 150% was deemed unjustified as it was based on a different interpretation of the transactions than the original penalty proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336593</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>