<?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>2025 (5) TMI 112 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769840</link>
    <description>SC/Tribunal ruled against tax penalty due to procedural defects. The penalty notice was found ambiguous, with irrelevant portions not struck off and unclear specification of charge under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer failed to record precise satisfaction regarding the penalty grounds. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were invalidated, and the additional ground of appeal challenging the notice was admitted and sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:22:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=818847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 112 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769840</link>
      <description>SC/Tribunal ruled against tax penalty due to procedural defects. The penalty notice was found ambiguous, with irrelevant portions not struck off and unclear specification of charge under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer failed to record precise satisfaction regarding the penalty grounds. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were invalidated, and the additional ground of appeal challenging the notice was admitted and sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769840</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>