<?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 (11) TMI 224 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414443</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) due to defects in the penalty notice, rendering it null and void. The ITAT emphasized the importance of proper initiation of penalty proceedings and strict compliance with procedural requirements. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s ruling and highlighting the need for adherence to procedural rules in penalty cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2021 07:01:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=660454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 224 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414443</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) due to defects in the penalty notice, rendering it null and void. The ITAT emphasized the importance of proper initiation of penalty proceedings and strict compliance with procedural requirements. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s ruling and highlighting the need for adherence to procedural rules in penalty cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414443</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>