<?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 (6) TMI 1418 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309148</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay of 87 days in filing the appeal against the penalty under section 271B for the assessment year 2016-17. The delay was attributed to COVID-19-related shutdowns. The penalty was deleted as the delay in submitting the audit report was due to the statutory auditors, not the assessee, and the report was available during assessment. The Tribunal found justification for the delay and overturned the decision of the AO and CIT(A), ruling in favor of the assessee on 7/6/2022.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Aug 2023 21:18:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=722566" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 1418 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309148</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay of 87 days in filing the appeal against the penalty under section 271B for the assessment year 2016-17. The delay was attributed to COVID-19-related shutdowns. The penalty was deleted as the delay in submitting the audit report was due to the statutory auditors, not the assessee, and the report was available during assessment. The Tribunal found justification for the delay and overturned the decision of the AO and CIT(A), ruling in favor of the assessee on 7/6/2022.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>