https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357965 The Tribunal found the penalty notice deficient as it did not specify the limb under which the penalty was imposed. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal held the notice invalid and ordered the deletion of the penalty imposed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was deleted. The decision emphasized the importance of clear and specific charges for penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) to ensure validity and fairness in penalty proceedings. en-us Mon, 08 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Apr 2018 06:57:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357965 The Tribunal found the penalty notice deficient as it did not specify the limb under which the penalty was imposed. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal held the notice invalid and ordered the deletion of the penalty imposed by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was deleted. The decision emphasized the importance of clear and specific charges for penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) to ensure validity and fairness in penalty proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 08 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357965