<?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>2022 (9) TMI 589 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427644</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the Assessee&#039;s appeal against the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Tribunal held that the penalty was unjustified as the notice initiating penalty proceedings did not specify the charge, following a precedent set by the Delhi High Court. It emphasized the importance of adhering to legal requirements and precedents in penalty imposition, leading to the decision to set aside the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2022 15:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=690659" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 589 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427644</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the Assessee&#039;s appeal against the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Tribunal held that the penalty was unjustified as the notice initiating penalty proceedings did not specify the charge, following a precedent set by the Delhi High Court. It emphasized the importance of adhering to legal requirements and precedents in penalty imposition, leading to the decision to set aside the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427644</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>