https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178203 The ITAT allowed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity of clearly specifying the charge for imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The judgment highlighted that the penalty order must adhere to the conditions specified in the Act and explicitly state whether it is for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The decision, based on established case law principles, focused on ensuring procedural fairness in penalty proceedings by deleting the penalty imposed due to the lack of a specific charge against the assessee. en-us Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178203 The ITAT allowed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity of clearly specifying the charge for imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The judgment highlighted that the penalty order must adhere to the conditions specified in the Act and explicitly state whether it is for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The decision, based on established case law principles, focused on ensuring procedural fairness in penalty proceedings by deleting the penalty imposed due to the lack of a specific charge against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 13 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178203