<?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>2017 (12) TMI 745 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352476</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2011-12. The decision was based on the lack of clarity in the penalty imposition by the Assessing Officer, who failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment or inaccuracy, aligning with legal precedents emphasizing the necessity for clear notice in penalty proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:38:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=499848" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 745 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352476</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2011-12. The decision was based on the lack of clarity in the penalty imposition by the Assessing Officer, who failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment or inaccuracy, aligning with legal precedents emphasizing the necessity for clear notice in penalty proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>