<?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 (2) TMI 1130 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195172</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the notice initiating penalty proceedings invalid due to lack of clarity on grounds for penalty initiation, specifying concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the Assessing Officer to clearly specify the default in the notice, setting aside the penalty order. The decision underscores the significance of procedural compliance in imposing penalties under the Income-tax Act, 1961.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:14:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 1130 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195172</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the notice initiating penalty proceedings invalid due to lack of clarity on grounds for penalty initiation, specifying concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the Assessing Officer to clearly specify the default in the notice, setting aside the penalty order. The decision underscores the significance of procedural compliance in imposing penalties under the Income-tax Act, 1961.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195172</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>