<?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 (10) TMI 1082 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349927</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found the penalty order lacking in explaining how concealment was established, deeming it a result of automatic confirmation of the quantum addition. Emphasizing the need for a fresh consideration in penalty cases, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty due to discrepancies in the assessment and penalty proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:06:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 1082 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349927</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found the penalty order lacking in explaining how concealment was established, deeming it a result of automatic confirmation of the quantum addition. Emphasizing the need for a fresh consideration in penalty cases, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty due to discrepancies in the assessment and penalty proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>