<?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>2017 (4) TMI 1250 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194486</link>
    <description>The tribunal quashed the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the assessing officer&#039;s failure to specify the grounds for initiating penalty proceedings. The court held that such omission rendered the penalty order invalid, following precedents emphasizing the necessity of explicit mention of grounds. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, declaring the penalty order invalid and ruling in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2017 07:43:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488774" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 1250 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194486</link>
      <description>The tribunal quashed the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the assessing officer&#039;s failure to specify the grounds for initiating penalty proceedings. The court held that such omission rendered the penalty order invalid, following precedents emphasizing the necessity of explicit mention of grounds. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal, declaring the penalty order invalid and ruling in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194486</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>