<?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>2020 (1) TMI 350 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390737</link>
    <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside penalty orders imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for various assessment years due to lack of specificity in the penalty notices. The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, canceling the penalties upheld by the CIT(A) and imposed by the Assessing Officer. The decision emphasized the importance of clear and specific penalty notices and the need for assessing officers to apply due diligence before imposing penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2020 07:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=599882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 350 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390737</link>
      <description>The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside penalty orders imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for various assessment years due to lack of specificity in the penalty notices. The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, canceling the penalties upheld by the CIT(A) and imposed by the Assessing Officer. The decision emphasized the importance of clear and specific penalty notices and the need for assessing officers to apply due diligence before imposing penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>