<?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>2018 (3) TMI 1460 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357757</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The decision was based on the principle that a penalty notice must clearly specify the charge, whether it is for &quot;concealment of income&quot; or &quot;furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.&quot; The Tribunal&#039;s decision was supported by multiple judicial precedents emphasizing the necessity of specificity in penalty notices.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:07:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=515155" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 1460 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357757</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The decision was based on the principle that a penalty notice must clearly specify the charge, whether it is for &quot;concealment of income&quot; or &quot;furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.&quot; The Tribunal&#039;s decision was supported by multiple judicial precedents emphasizing the necessity of specificity in penalty notices.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>