<?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 747 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414966</link>
    <description>The tribunal found that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was invalid as the notice did not specify the charge related to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing the importance of specifying the limb of section 271(1)(c) in the penalty notice, the tribunal ordered the penalty to be deleted. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2021 06:09:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=661766" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 747 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414966</link>
      <description>The tribunal found that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was invalid as the notice did not specify the charge related to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing the importance of specifying the limb of section 271(1)(c) in the penalty notice, the tribunal ordered the penalty to be deleted. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414966</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>