https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362815 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2004-05. The decision was based on the lack of specificity in the penalty notice, which failed to clearly indicate whether the penalty was for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Emphasizing procedural fairness, the Tribunal held that penalties must be based on specific charges, citing legal precedents and a decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The appeal was allowed solely on procedural grounds without delving into the merits of the penalty itself. en-us Thu, 28 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jul 2018 09:27:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362815 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2004-05. The decision was based on the lack of specificity in the penalty notice, which failed to clearly indicate whether the penalty was for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Emphasizing procedural fairness, the Tribunal held that penalties must be based on specific charges, citing legal precedents and a decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The appeal was allowed solely on procedural grounds without delving into the merits of the penalty itself. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 28 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362815