<?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 (7) TMI 960 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755740</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, quashing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act due to a defective penalty notice. The notice failed to specify charges, rendering it an unsustainable omnibus notice. Citing precedents, the ITAT emphasized that specificity in penalty notices is crucial, leading to the penalty&#039;s invalidation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2024 13:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=760571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 960 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755740</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, quashing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act due to a defective penalty notice. The notice failed to specify charges, rendering it an unsustainable omnibus notice. Citing precedents, the ITAT emphasized that specificity in penalty notices is crucial, leading to the penalty&#039;s invalidation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>