<?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 (12) TMI 28 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389145</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the requirement for a specific charge in penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Due to the lack of clarity in the penalty order regarding the nature of the alleged offense, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, without delving into the merits of other grounds raised in the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2019 16:16:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=595966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 28 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389145</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Rajkot ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the requirement for a specific charge in penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Due to the lack of clarity in the penalty order regarding the nature of the alleged offense, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, without delving into the merits of other grounds raised in the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389145</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>