<?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>2018 (4) TMI 1553 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273382</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty order due to the invalidity of the notice, as it did not clearly specify the grounds for initiating the penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Act. The appeal by the Revenue, seeking to challenge the reduction of penalty from 30% to 10%, became infructuous following the Tribunal&#039;s decision. The judgment underscored the importance of providing clear and specific grounds in penalty notices to ensure the principles of natural justice are upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2018 06:52:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=524420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1553 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273382</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty order due to the invalidity of the notice, as it did not clearly specify the grounds for initiating the penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Act. The appeal by the Revenue, seeking to challenge the reduction of penalty from 30% to 10%, became infructuous following the Tribunal&#039;s decision. The judgment underscored the importance of providing clear and specific grounds in penalty notices to ensure the principles of natural justice are upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>