<?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 (8) TMI 1456 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274737</link>
    <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the penalty proceedings invalid due to a defective penalty notice. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was canceled as the notice failed to specify the nature of the default, aligning with previous court decisions. The tribunal emphasized the importance of clarity in penalty notices for procedural fairness and compliance with legal standards.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2018 06:46:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532566" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1456 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274737</link>
      <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the penalty proceedings invalid due to a defective penalty notice. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was canceled as the notice failed to specify the nature of the default, aligning with previous court decisions. The tribunal emphasized the importance of clarity in penalty notices for procedural fairness and compliance with legal standards.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>