<?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 (7) TMI 383 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382687</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as there was no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was deleted, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of notice format, finding no prescribed proforma, and deleted the penalty under Section 271AAB for the assessment year 2014-15 as the assessee met all required conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2019 06:21:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=578547" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 383 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382687</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as there was no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was deleted, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of notice format, finding no prescribed proforma, and deleted the penalty under Section 271AAB for the assessment year 2014-15 as the assessee met all required conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382687</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>