<?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>2019 (2) TMI 156 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374529</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal considered the challenge to the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, focusing on the vagueness of the notice issued to the assessee. The Tribunal held that the notice must specify the default for which the assessee is charged to enable a proper explanation. The Tribunal set aside the penalty levied on the assessees for the impugned assessment years based on the vagueness of the notice. Additionally, regarding the imposition of interest under section 234A of the Act, the Tribunal found that the assessees were not given adequate time to respond and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2019 07:04:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=556353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 156 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374529</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal considered the challenge to the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, focusing on the vagueness of the notice issued to the assessee. The Tribunal held that the notice must specify the default for which the assessee is charged to enable a proper explanation. The Tribunal set aside the penalty levied on the assessees for the impugned assessment years based on the vagueness of the notice. Additionally, regarding the imposition of interest under section 234A of the Act, the Tribunal found that the assessees were not given adequate time to respond and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374529</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>