https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382896 The case involved challenges to an ex-parte order framed by the CIT(A), confirmation of a penalty under section 271(1)(c), and the validity of the penalty order based on income and surcharge. The ITAT found procedural errors in the penalty order, highlighting that the penalty was invalid due to a previously allowed claim of bad debts. As a result, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee against the revenue, ultimately leading to the favorable outcome for the assessee. en-us Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Jul 2019 14:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382896 The case involved challenges to an ex-parte order framed by the CIT(A), confirmation of a penalty under section 271(1)(c), and the validity of the penalty order based on income and surcharge. The ITAT found procedural errors in the penalty order, highlighting that the penalty was invalid due to a previously allowed claim of bad debts. As a result, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee against the revenue, ultimately leading to the favorable outcome for the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382896