<?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>1980 (2) TMI 112 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61135</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the penalties imposed were within the statutory period as per Section 275(b) of the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal found that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) had no jurisdiction to levy penalties after the omission of Section 274(2) from the statute book. Consequently, the penalties imposed by the IAC were deemed illegal, and the Tribunal canceled them for both assessment years under appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:43:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99582" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (2) TMI 112 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61135</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the penalties imposed were within the statutory period as per Section 275(b) of the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal found that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) had no jurisdiction to levy penalties after the omission of Section 274(2) from the statute book. Consequently, the penalties imposed by the IAC were deemed illegal, and the Tribunal canceled them for both assessment years under appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>