https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402188 The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal challenging the penalty order under sections 271(1)(c) and 250 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant, a non-resident foreign company, contested the penalty notice's validity, arguing it lacked clarity on the nature of the charge. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of specifying the charge in penalty notices. Due to the lack of clarity in the notice, the penalty order was quashed, as it was deemed unsustainable. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee based on the principle that clarity in specifying the charge is crucial for a penalty under section 271(1)(c) to be valid and sustainable. en-us Wed, 23 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Dec 2020 16:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402188 The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal challenging the penalty order under sections 271(1)(c) and 250 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant, a non-resident foreign company, contested the penalty notice's validity, arguing it lacked clarity on the nature of the charge. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of specifying the charge in penalty notices. Due to the lack of clarity in the notice, the penalty order was quashed, as it was deemed unsustainable. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee based on the principle that clarity in specifying the charge is crucial for a penalty under section 271(1)(c) to be valid and sustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402188