https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278232 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) as the Assessing Officer failed to specify the grounds for penalty imposition, rendering it invalid. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of clarity in stating the charge for penalty under the Income Tax Act, citing legal precedents and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. M/s SSA' Emerald Meadows. Despite the CIT(A) confirming the penalty, the lack of specificity in the penalty notice led to the penalty being overturned in favor of the appellant. en-us Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:41:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278232 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) as the Assessing Officer failed to specify the grounds for penalty imposition, rendering it invalid. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of clarity in stating the charge for penalty under the Income Tax Act, citing legal precedents and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. M/s SSA' Emerald Meadows. Despite the CIT(A) confirming the penalty, the lack of specificity in the penalty notice led to the penalty being overturned in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278232