<?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 (10) TMI 278 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800335</link>
    <description>Penalty proceedings under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS require the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction concerning the alleged breach during assessment proceedings. Where an assessment completed under Section 144 contains neither such satisfaction nor initiation of penalty proceedings, the jurisdictional basis for the penalty is absent. The resulting penalty proceedings are invalid, requiring deletion of the penalty for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:13:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=927853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 278 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800335</link>
      <description>Penalty proceedings under Section 271D for contravention of Section 269SS require the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction concerning the alleged breach during assessment proceedings. Where an assessment completed under Section 144 contains neither such satisfaction nor initiation of penalty proceedings, the jurisdictional basis for the penalty is absent. The resulting penalty proceedings are invalid, requiring deletion of the penalty for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>