<?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>1989 (12) TMI 84 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61413</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(A) of the IT Act for late filing of return. It found that the delay was due to the inaction of the authorized representative, with no guilty intention on the part of the assessee. Referring to relevant case laws, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty was justifiable when there was no tax liability. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision to cancel the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:33:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (12) TMI 84 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61413</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(A) of the IT Act for late filing of return. It found that the delay was due to the inaction of the authorized representative, with no guilty intention on the part of the assessee. Referring to relevant case laws, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty was justifiable when there was no tax liability. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision to cancel the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61413</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>