<?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 (5) TMI 603 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791401</link>
    <description>A penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot ordinarily survive where the quantum addition on which it is founded has already been deleted, because the underlying basis for concealment or inaccurate particulars no longer exists. Here, the Tribunal had deleted the assessment addition for the relevant year, and the Revenue did not dispute that position; accordingly, the penalty order could not be sustained and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 May 2026 09:50:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900913" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 603 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791401</link>
      <description>A penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot ordinarily survive where the quantum addition on which it is founded has already been deleted, because the underlying basis for concealment or inaccurate particulars no longer exists. Here, the Tribunal had deleted the assessment addition for the relevant year, and the Revenue did not dispute that position; accordingly, the penalty order could not be sustained and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>