<?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>2019 (2) TMI 365 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374738</link>
    <description>The Tribunal canceled the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act due to the lack of specificity in the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the penalty proceedings were vitiated as the AO did not record proper satisfaction and failed to specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. As a result, the penalty was deemed unsustainable in the eyes of the law, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2019 06:31:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=556951" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 365 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374738</link>
      <description>The Tribunal canceled the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act due to the lack of specificity in the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the penalty proceedings were vitiated as the AO did not record proper satisfaction and failed to specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. As a result, the penalty was deemed unsustainable in the eyes of the law, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374738</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>