<?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>2020 (9) TMI 729 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398610</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty of Rs. 278,024 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was canceled due to a procedural flaw in the notice, where charges were not clearly specified, rendering it unsustainable. The ITAT did not address the merits of the case, focusing solely on the defective notice issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2020 17:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=622741" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 729 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398610</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty of Rs. 278,024 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was canceled due to a procedural flaw in the notice, where charges were not clearly specified, rendering it unsustainable. The ITAT did not address the merits of the case, focusing solely on the defective notice issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398610</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>