<?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>2022 (4) TMI 589 - ITAT SURAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420923</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The decision was based on the finding that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the charge clearly, following precedents emphasizing the need for specificity in penalty notices. The Tribunal concluded that the lack of clarity in the notice vitiated the penalty proceedings, leading to the deletion of the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2022 08:39:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=675893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 589 - ITAT SURAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420923</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The decision was based on the finding that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify the charge clearly, following precedents emphasizing the need for specificity in penalty notices. The Tribunal concluded that the lack of clarity in the notice vitiated the penalty proceedings, leading to the deletion of the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420923</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>