<?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 777 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380049</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the Assessee&#039;s appeal, canceling the penalty order imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer&#039;s failure to specify the exact nature of the violation in the penalty notice rendered the penalty unsustainable, citing legal precedents requiring clear specificity in penalty notices. The decision was pronounced on 10/05/2019.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 May 2019 06:59:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=570902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 777 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380049</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the Assessee&#039;s appeal, canceling the penalty order imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer&#039;s failure to specify the exact nature of the violation in the penalty notice rendered the penalty unsustainable, citing legal precedents requiring clear specificity in penalty notices. The decision was pronounced on 10/05/2019.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>