https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444553 The penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deemed invalid as it was issued without specifying the exact charge, rendering the proceedings legally flawed. The court referenced the Bombay HC's precedent, emphasizing the need for clarity in penalty notices to avoid vagueness. Citing the SC's decision in Dilip N. Shroff, the judgment underscored the importance of precision in legal notices. Consequently, the penalty order for the assessment year 2014-15 was quashed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 16 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Oct 2023 17:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444553 The penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deemed invalid as it was issued without specifying the exact charge, rendering the proceedings legally flawed. The court referenced the Bombay HC's precedent, emphasizing the need for clarity in penalty notices to avoid vagueness. Citing the SC's decision in Dilip N. Shroff, the judgment underscored the importance of precision in legal notices. Consequently, the penalty order for the assessment year 2014-15 was quashed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 16 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444553