<?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>2008 (3) TMI 124 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30114</link>
    <description>The High Court set aside the orders passed by the respondents and directed compliance with penalty provisions under section 271B of the Income-tax Act. The court found the penalty imposition without due consideration of the audit report to be arbitrary and not legally sustainable. The writ petition was allowed with specified terms and conditions, and no costs were imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68772" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 124 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30114</link>
      <description>The High Court set aside the orders passed by the respondents and directed compliance with penalty provisions under section 271B of the Income-tax Act. The court found the penalty imposition without due consideration of the audit report to be arbitrary and not legally sustainable. The writ petition was allowed with specified terms and conditions, and no costs were imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30114</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>