https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392734 The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) due to the Assessing Officer's failure to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal, referencing a similar precedent from the Bombay HC, determined the penalty unjustified in the absence of clear satisfaction regarding the charge's nature. Consequently, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee. en-us Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Nov 2024 11:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392734 The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) due to the Assessing Officer's failure to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal, referencing a similar precedent from the Bombay HC, determined the penalty unjustified in the absence of clear satisfaction regarding the charge's nature. Consequently, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392734