<?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>2024 (2) TMI 1039 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449888</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, directing the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found the penalty notice defective for failing to specify the charge, rendering it an omnibus notice. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the penalty order was quashed, favoring the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:21:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=744446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 1039 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449888</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, directing the deletion of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found the penalty notice defective for failing to specify the charge, rendering it an omnibus notice. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the penalty order was quashed, favoring the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>