<?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>1979 (12) TMI 95 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64131</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi-C ruled that the Inspecting Asstt. CIT lost jurisdiction to impose a penalty post-amendment of s. 274(2). The Tribunal annulled the penalty order, allowing the appeal and emphasizing the importance of authorities acting within legal boundaries. The judgment highlighted the necessity for authorities to possess jurisdiction and competence in imposing penalties, ultimately siding with the assessee&#039;s challenge against the penalty imposition due to lack of jurisdiction post-amendment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Feb 2011 10:08:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (12) TMI 95 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64131</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi-C ruled that the Inspecting Asstt. CIT lost jurisdiction to impose a penalty post-amendment of s. 274(2). The Tribunal annulled the penalty order, allowing the appeal and emphasizing the importance of authorities acting within legal boundaries. The judgment highlighted the necessity for authorities to possess jurisdiction and competence in imposing penalties, ultimately siding with the assessee&#039;s challenge against the penalty imposition due to lack of jurisdiction post-amendment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64131</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>