<?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>2021 (8) TMI 282 - ITAT SURAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410704</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,00,060 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Tribunal found that the assessing officer lacked specificity in the penalty notice, leading to confusion between different sections of the Act and incorrect premises for imposing the penalty. Emphasizing discretion in penalty imposition, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty should not apply due to technicalities and absence of willful misconduct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2021 08:50:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=651935" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 282 - ITAT SURAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410704</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,00,060 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Tribunal found that the assessing officer lacked specificity in the penalty notice, leading to confusion between different sections of the Act and incorrect premises for imposing the penalty. Emphasizing discretion in penalty imposition, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty should not apply due to technicalities and absence of willful misconduct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>