<?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>1993 (3) TMI 128 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55512</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was applicable when the finally assessed amount resulted in a loss. Consequently, penalties for the asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91, based on unpaid luxury tax and cash credits, were canceled. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of strict construction of penalty provisions, favored decisions supporting the assessee, and underscored the necessity to interpret taxing provisions in favor of the assessee, particularly in penalty cases due to ambiguity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Nov 2010 13:58:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93975" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (3) TMI 128 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55512</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was applicable when the finally assessed amount resulted in a loss. Consequently, penalties for the asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1990-91, based on unpaid luxury tax and cash credits, were canceled. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of strict construction of penalty provisions, favored decisions supporting the assessee, and underscored the necessity to interpret taxing provisions in favor of the assessee, particularly in penalty cases due to ambiguity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55512</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>