<?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 (7) TMI 1319 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383623</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was unsustainable due to the lack of specificity in the notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The notice failed to clearly indicate whether the penalty was for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, as required by legal standards. As a result, the penalty of Rs. 3,92,709 was deleted, and the assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jul 2019 07:32:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=581440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 1319 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383623</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was unsustainable due to the lack of specificity in the notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The notice failed to clearly indicate whether the penalty was for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, as required by legal standards. As a result, the penalty of Rs. 3,92,709 was deleted, and the assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383623</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>