<?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 (9) TMI 351 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758107</link>
    <description>The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to procedural lapses in the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The ITAT found the notice deficient as it failed to specify the offense, violating established legal principles and judicial precedents, thus directing the deletion of the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Sep 2024 14:37:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 351 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758107</link>
      <description>The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to procedural lapses in the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The ITAT found the notice deficient as it failed to specify the offense, violating established legal principles and judicial precedents, thus directing the deletion of the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758107</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>