<?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>1986 (2) TMI 83 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55889</link>
    <description>Belated filing of an income-tax return did not justify penalty where the assessee had sought extension of time, the computation resulted in a refund, and no mens rea was shown. The Tribunal applied the principle that penalty liability cannot be sustained unless the legal foundation for it first exists, and held that the absence of a tax due position meant the basis for penal action was missing. Penalty was therefore not leviable and was cancelled in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:27:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=94351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (2) TMI 83 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55889</link>
      <description>Belated filing of an income-tax return did not justify penalty where the assessee had sought extension of time, the computation resulted in a refund, and no mens rea was shown. The Tribunal applied the principle that penalty liability cannot be sustained unless the legal foundation for it first exists, and held that the absence of a tax due position meant the basis for penal action was missing. Penalty was therefore not leviable and was cancelled in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55889</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>