<?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>2018 (10) TMI 2037 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457198</link>
    <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) that upheld a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT determined that penalties cannot be imposed on ad hoc or estimated disallowances, referencing relevant legal precedents. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2024 20:40:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 2037 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457198</link>
      <description>The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) that upheld a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT determined that penalties cannot be imposed on ad hoc or estimated disallowances, referencing relevant legal precedents. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457198</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>