<?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 (1) TMI 1721 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286296</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity of specifying grounds for penalty initiation under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Relying on judicial precedents, the penalty was deleted as there was no concealment and full details were provided during assessment, aligning with the decision in M/s SSA&#039; Emerald Meadows case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:19:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=604540" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 1721 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286296</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity of specifying grounds for penalty initiation under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Relying on judicial precedents, the penalty was deleted as there was no concealment and full details were provided during assessment, aligning with the decision in M/s SSA&#039; Emerald Meadows case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>