<?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>1981 (2) TMI 93 - ITAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56538</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty imposed for failure to file an estimate of advance tax under section 212(3A) of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee&#039;s explanation, considering a clerical error in income declaration and a genuine belief in eligibility for relief under section 80QQ. The penalty initially imposed by the Income Tax Officer was reduced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but ultimately deleted by the Tribunal, deeming it unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2010 13:03:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=95000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (2) TMI 93 - ITAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56538</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty imposed for failure to file an estimate of advance tax under section 212(3A) of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee&#039;s explanation, considering a clerical error in income declaration and a genuine belief in eligibility for relief under section 80QQ. The penalty initially imposed by the Income Tax Officer was reduced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but ultimately deleted by the Tribunal, deeming it unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56538</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>