<?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 (9) TMI 273 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777784</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act was found unsustainable because the Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income but levied penalty for concealment of income. The two limbs are distinct and cannot be used interchangeably. Where the charge is vague or inconsistent, the penalty notice and order fail for lack of clear specification of the exact basis of liability, and the penalty cannot stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2025 08:10:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=848254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 273 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777784</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act was found unsustainable because the Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income but levied penalty for concealment of income. The two limbs are distinct and cannot be used interchangeably. Where the charge is vague or inconsistent, the penalty notice and order fail for lack of clear specification of the exact basis of liability, and the penalty cannot stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777784</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>