<?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 (5) TMI 1123 - ITAT RAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380395</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) due to the failure to specify the nature of default in the notice. Emphasizing procedural compliance, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty entirely, highlighting the importance of clearly stating the basis for the penalty. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was deemed invalid, focusing on legal requirements rather than the merits of the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2019 22:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=571850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 1123 - ITAT RAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380395</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) due to the failure to specify the nature of default in the notice. Emphasizing procedural compliance, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty entirely, highlighting the importance of clearly stating the basis for the penalty. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was deemed invalid, focusing on legal requirements rather than the merits of the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>