<?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 324 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424769</link>
    <description>The Tribunal quashed the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act due to a defective notice and the debatable nature of issues in the quantum proceedings. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, emphasizing the importance of clear charges in penalty notices and considering ongoing judicial scrutiny in quantum proceedings. The penalty order was deemed unsustainable, and the penalty was overturned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2022 09:34:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=684375" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 324 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424769</link>
      <description>The Tribunal quashed the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act due to a defective notice and the debatable nature of issues in the quantum proceedings. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, emphasizing the importance of clear charges in penalty notices and considering ongoing judicial scrutiny in quantum proceedings. The penalty order was deemed unsustainable, and the penalty was overturned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424769</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>