<?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 (5) TMI 627 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379899</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2006-07. The tribunal considered the inadvertent nature of the error in claiming unabsorbed depreciation twice, ruling in favor of the assessee. Emphasizing the importance of assessing intent and circumstances, the tribunal concluded that the penalty was unwarranted in this case, canceling it and allowing the assessee&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2019 06:30:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=570436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 627 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379899</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2006-07. The tribunal considered the inadvertent nature of the error in claiming unabsorbed depreciation twice, ruling in favor of the assessee. Emphasizing the importance of assessing intent and circumstances, the tribunal concluded that the penalty was unwarranted in this case, canceling it and allowing the assessee&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379899</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>