<?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>2023 (4) TMI 677 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436651</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed, and the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was set aside. The court found that the penalty notice did not clearly specify the reason for initiating penalty proceedings, rendering the proceedings void ab initio. The court emphasized the necessity of clear and specific notices in penalty proceedings for their validity. Additionally, the legal heir of the deceased Assessee was allowed representation in the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Apr 2023 08:39:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=710993" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (4) TMI 677 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436651</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed, and the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was set aside. The court found that the penalty notice did not clearly specify the reason for initiating penalty proceedings, rendering the proceedings void ab initio. The court emphasized the necessity of clear and specific notices in penalty proceedings for their validity. Additionally, the legal heir of the deceased Assessee was allowed representation in the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436651</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>