<?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 (11) TMI 1630 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281328</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the cancellation of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) due to an invalid penalty notice that failed to specify the nature of the offense clearly. The decision emphasized the importance of clarity and specificity in penalty notices to ensure fairness and procedural justice in penalty proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2019 06:36:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1630 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281328</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the cancellation of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) due to an invalid penalty notice that failed to specify the nature of the offense clearly. The decision emphasized the importance of clarity and specificity in penalty notices to ensure fairness and procedural justice in penalty proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281328</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>