<?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>2009 (12) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35374</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to cancel the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1996-97. The court found that since the deduction under Section 80-O was allowed in a prior order, the grounds for imposing the penalty were no longer valid. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing the importance of aligning penalty imposition with legal and factual circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73961" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35374</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to cancel the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1996-97. The court found that since the deduction under Section 80-O was allowed in a prior order, the grounds for imposing the penalty were no longer valid. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing the importance of aligning penalty imposition with legal and factual circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>