<?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 (7) TMI 112 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424557</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The decision was based on the lack of a specific charge in the penalty proceedings and the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The judgment emphasized the importance of clearly specifying charges in penalty notices and ensuring penalties are imposed only in cases of genuine concealment of income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Jul 2022 09:08:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=683858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 112 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424557</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The decision was based on the lack of a specific charge in the penalty proceedings and the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The judgment emphasized the importance of clearly specifying charges in penalty notices and ensuring penalties are imposed only in cases of genuine concealment of income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424557</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>