<?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 (9) TMI 48 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427103</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and directed the A.O to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee due to ambiguity in specifying the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The appeal was allowed solely on this legal ground, emphasizing the need for clarity and specificity in penalty imposition to ensure procedural fairness in tax proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2022 10:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=689472" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 48 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427103</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and directed the A.O to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee due to ambiguity in specifying the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The appeal was allowed solely on this legal ground, emphasizing the need for clarity and specificity in penalty imposition to ensure procedural fairness in tax proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>