<?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>2026 (9) TMI 789 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798763</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(c) requires clarity on the applicable limb, but no substantive ruling was made on that issue. The Special Leave Petition challenging the penalty matter was dismissed because of a 201-day filing delay. The reasons offered for condonation were held insufficient in law, and the questions of law, including any issue concerning specification of the penalty limb, were left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2026 08:30:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=922180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 789 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798763</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(c) requires clarity on the applicable limb, but no substantive ruling was made on that issue. The Special Leave Petition challenging the penalty matter was dismissed because of a 201-day filing delay. The reasons offered for condonation were held insufficient in law, and the questions of law, including any issue concerning specification of the penalty limb, were left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798763</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>