<?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 (3) TMI 105 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59958</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 285A(2) was not sustained where the record indicated a prima facie case that the required contract information may have been furnished and the assessee had only seven days&#039; notice of the show-cause hearing, which was treated as inadequate for effective representation. The penalty order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision after granting due opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:49:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=98407" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (3) TMI 105 - ITAT CALCUTTA-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59958</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 285A(2) was not sustained where the record indicated a prima facie case that the required contract information may have been furnished and the assessee had only seven days&#039; notice of the show-cause hearing, which was treated as inadequate for effective representation. The penalty order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision after granting due opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59958</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>