<?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 (11) TMI 521 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388272</link>
    <description>The tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals citing valid reasons and consolidated the appeals for hearing. Regarding the validity of the penalty notice under section 271(1)(c), the tribunal found the notice to be vague and not in compliance with legal standards. Relying on judicial precedents, including a judgment by the High Court of Telangana &amp;amp; A.P., the tribunal concluded the notice was invalid. Consequently, the penalty order was canceled, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the assessees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:33:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=593835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 521 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388272</link>
      <description>The tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals citing valid reasons and consolidated the appeals for hearing. Regarding the validity of the penalty notice under section 271(1)(c), the tribunal found the notice to be vague and not in compliance with legal standards. Relying on judicial precedents, including a judgment by the High Court of Telangana &amp;amp; A.P., the tribunal concluded the notice was invalid. Consequently, the penalty order was canceled, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the assessees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388272</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>