<?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 (12) TMI 44 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401245</link>
    <description>The Tribunal condoned a 17-day delay in filing the appeal, deeming it reasonable. Regarding the validity of penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal found the notices defective for failing to specify charges clearly, following precedents from various High Courts. Due to the lack of specificity in the notices, the penalties imposed were invalidated, and the appeals were allowed, canceling the penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2020 17:53:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=629128" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 44 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401245</link>
      <description>The Tribunal condoned a 17-day delay in filing the appeal, deeming it reasonable. Regarding the validity of penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the Tribunal found the notices defective for failing to specify charges clearly, following precedents from various High Courts. Due to the lack of specificity in the notices, the penalties imposed were invalidated, and the appeals were allowed, canceling the penalties.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>