<?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 (3) TMI 387 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376366</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(b) could not be sustained where the assessee had filed a reply to the notice under section 142(1), and that reply was already on record and acknowledged by the Assessing Officer. On those facts, there was compliance with the notice, so the statutory condition precedent for levy of penalty, namely failure to comply, was absent. The penalty was therefore cancelled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2019 08:06:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=561927" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 387 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376366</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(b) could not be sustained where the assessee had filed a reply to the notice under section 142(1), and that reply was already on record and acknowledged by the Assessing Officer. On those facts, there was compliance with the notice, so the statutory condition precedent for levy of penalty, namely failure to comply, was absent. The penalty was therefore cancelled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376366</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>