<?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>2021 (9) TMI 1225 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412880</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the absence of a clear charge for concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of specifying the charge in the penalty notice for validity and referred to legal precedents to support its decision. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and directed the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty, citing decisions from the Karnataka High Court and the Delhi High Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Sep 2021 11:04:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 1225 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412880</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the absence of a clear charge for concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of specifying the charge in the penalty notice for validity and referred to legal precedents to support its decision. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and directed the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty, citing decisions from the Karnataka High Court and the Delhi High Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412880</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>