<?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 (11) TMI 65 - ITAT RANCHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400310</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was invalid in a case involving search and seizure operations. The penalty was deemed inapplicable as the case fell under section 271AAB, which overrides section 271(1)(c) in such instances. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs. 1,12,05,200, emphasizing the overriding effect of the specific provision of section 271AAB.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2020 12:05:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 65 - ITAT RANCHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400310</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was invalid in a case involving search and seizure operations. The penalty was deemed inapplicable as the case fell under section 271AAB, which overrides section 271(1)(c) in such instances. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs. 1,12,05,200, emphasizing the overriding effect of the specific provision of section 271AAB.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400310</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>