<?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>2005 (3) TMI 74 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10662</link>
    <description>The appeal against the cancellation of the penalty under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the penalty order was invalid as the necessary approval from the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax was not obtained before levying the penalty. Moreover, the penalty proceedings were initiated under different sections of the Act, weakening the grounds for sustaining the penalty. The audit compliance of the assessee&#039;s accounts under section 44AB provided protection against the penalty, and the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for imposing the penalty. The assessee&#039;s genuine impression and reasonable cause to contest the penalty were considered reasonable and sustainable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49683" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 74 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10662</link>
      <description>The appeal against the cancellation of the penalty under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the penalty order was invalid as the necessary approval from the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax was not obtained before levying the penalty. Moreover, the penalty proceedings were initiated under different sections of the Act, weakening the grounds for sustaining the penalty. The audit compliance of the assessee&#039;s accounts under section 44AB provided protection against the penalty, and the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for imposing the penalty. The assessee&#039;s genuine impression and reasonable cause to contest the penalty were considered reasonable and sustainable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>