https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751275 ITAT Delhi quashed penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) due to defective notice under section 274. The AO failed to specify whether penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Bombay HC precedent in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh, the tribunal held that notices must clearly indicate the specific limb under section 271(1)(c) and strike off irrelevant portions. The penalty order was declared bad in law and quashed in favor of the assessee. en-us Tue, 09 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:51:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751275 ITAT Delhi quashed penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) due to defective notice under section 274. The AO failed to specify whether penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following Bombay HC precedent in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh, the tribunal held that notices must clearly indicate the specific limb under section 271(1)(c) and strike off irrelevant portions. The penalty order was declared bad in law and quashed in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751275