<?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 (9) TMI 1238 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367502</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) when penalty proceedings under section 271AAB had already been initiated by the Assessing Officer. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was quashed, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural requirements. The assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed, highlighting the significance of complying with statutory provisions in penalty proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:26:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=535265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 1238 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367502</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) when penalty proceedings under section 271AAB had already been initiated by the Assessing Officer. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) was quashed, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural requirements. The assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed, highlighting the significance of complying with statutory provisions in penalty proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367502</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>