<?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>2026 (1) TMI 251 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784495</link>
    <description>A final immunity certificate issued under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 was treated as conclusive and operated as a bar against further penalty-related action under the Income-tax Act. The article states that, once immunity from penalty proceedings was granted in respect of the disputed tax, the revisional authority could not direct a de novo penalty order on the basis of an audit objection. It further notes that the immunity was general and was not defeated merely because the penalty was described under an allegedly incorrect provision. The concluded position was that reopening or revisional interference could not survive once the scheme certificate had attained finality.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 08:48:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 251 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784495</link>
      <description>A final immunity certificate issued under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 was treated as conclusive and operated as a bar against further penalty-related action under the Income-tax Act. The article states that, once immunity from penalty proceedings was granted in respect of the disputed tax, the revisional authority could not direct a de novo penalty order on the basis of an audit objection. It further notes that the immunity was general and was not defeated merely because the penalty was described under an allegedly incorrect provision. The concluded position was that reopening or revisional interference could not survive once the scheme certificate had attained finality.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>