https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409312 The ITAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) imposed by the Assessing Officer for AY 2013-14. The ITAT held the penalty invalid as the notice did not specify the grounds for initiating penalty proceedings, as required by law. The decision was based on the lack of clarity in the notice issued by the Assessing Officer, following precedents and the decision in CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows. en-us Tue, 29 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jul 2021 08:26:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409312 The ITAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) imposed by the Assessing Officer for AY 2013-14. The ITAT held the penalty invalid as the notice did not specify the grounds for initiating penalty proceedings, as required by law. The decision was based on the lack of clarity in the notice issued by the Assessing Officer, following precedents and the decision in CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409312