<?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>2001 (11) TMI 976 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151934</link>
    <description>The penalty levied under section 273 was held invalid due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and principles of natural justice. The show-cause notice did not specify the charge, denying the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The procedural irregularity was not curable under section 292B. The penalty on the firm did not preclude penalty on the partner, but the specific charge must be communicated to the assessee. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was cancelled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:08:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168972" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (11) TMI 976 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151934</link>
      <description>The penalty levied under section 273 was held invalid due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and principles of natural justice. The show-cause notice did not specify the charge, denying the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The procedural irregularity was not curable under section 292B. The penalty on the firm did not preclude penalty on the partner, but the specific charge must be communicated to the assessee. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was cancelled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151934</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>