<?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>2017 (3) TMI 1783 - ITAT PANAJI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284108</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)&#039;s decision to cancel the penalty imposed on the assessee firm under Section 271AAB for Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2014-15. The revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed as the search triggering the penalty was conducted at a partner&#039;s residence, not the firm&#039;s premises, leading to the conclusion that the penalty conditions were not met. Therefore, the penalty imposition was deemed unjustified, affirming the CIT (A)&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2019 11:13:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=592579" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1783 - ITAT PANAJI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284108</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)&#039;s decision to cancel the penalty imposed on the assessee firm under Section 271AAB for Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2014-15. The revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed as the search triggering the penalty was conducted at a partner&#039;s residence, not the firm&#039;s premises, leading to the conclusion that the penalty conditions were not met. Therefore, the penalty imposition was deemed unjustified, affirming the CIT (A)&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284108</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>