https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752728 Delhi HC dismissed appeal in penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). ITAT had remanded matter to AO for re-examination due to AO's failure to specify in original notice which particular limb of Section 271(1)(c) was being invoked. HC upheld ITAT's decision, emphasizing that AO must clearly indicate to assessee which specific provision applies, as penalty burden varies depending on whether case involves concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Court noted both limbs may apply simultaneously and notice should reflect this when applicable. en-us Mon, 06 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 May 2024 11:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752728 Delhi HC dismissed appeal in penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). ITAT had remanded matter to AO for re-examination due to AO's failure to specify in original notice which particular limb of Section 271(1)(c) was being invoked. HC upheld ITAT's decision, emphasizing that AO must clearly indicate to assessee which specific provision applies, as penalty burden varies depending on whether case involves concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Court noted both limbs may apply simultaneously and notice should reflect this when applicable. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 06 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752728