<?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>2016 (6) TMI 1383 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285282</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay and setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) due to the lack of specificity in the charge, which violated the principles of natural justice. The order emphasized the necessity for clear and specific charges in penalty proceedings to ensure the assessee&#039;s right to a fair defense.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jan 2020 20:14:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=599467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 1383 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285282</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay and setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) due to the lack of specificity in the charge, which violated the principles of natural justice. The order emphasized the necessity for clear and specific charges in penalty proceedings to ensure the assessee&#039;s right to a fair defense.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>