<?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 (8) TMI 1616 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777428</link>
    <description>HC held that a penalty notice issued under s.271(1)(c) in a printed form that failed to specify whether proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars was invalid. Relying on earlier HC precedent, the notice was quashed as bad in law and the penalty set aside. The assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2025 08:56:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=846585" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 1616 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777428</link>
      <description>HC held that a penalty notice issued under s.271(1)(c) in a printed form that failed to specify whether proceedings were for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars was invalid. Relying on earlier HC precedent, the notice was quashed as bad in law and the penalty set aside. The assessee&#039;s appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>