<?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 (6) TMI 1059 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772946</link>
    <description>HC/SC examined penalty imposition under Income Tax Act for double depreciation claim. The court found the error was a clerical mistake made in good faith, not a deliberate attempt to evade tax. Since the assessee voluntarily corrected the error and derived no tax benefit, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unjustified. The court upheld CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of penalty, emphasizing penalties should not apply to inadvertent errors without malafide intent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2025 12:58:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=829234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1059 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772946</link>
      <description>HC/SC examined penalty imposition under Income Tax Act for double depreciation claim. The court found the error was a clerical mistake made in good faith, not a deliberate attempt to evade tax. Since the assessee voluntarily corrected the error and derived no tax benefit, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unjustified. The court upheld CIT(A)&#039;s deletion of penalty, emphasizing penalties should not apply to inadvertent errors without malafide intent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>