https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78498 The Appellate Tribunal considered two issues: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s 270A. For the first, the Tribunal found the penalty notice defective as it did not specify the offense committed by the assessee, following the precedent set in Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was directed to be deleted. Regarding penalty u/s 270A for misreporting income, the Tribunal noted the vague show cause notice lacking specific sub-clauses under section 270A(9). Since the AO made ad hoc disallowances without clear mention of sub-clauses, the assessee qualified for immunity u/s 270A(6)(b). Citing SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SOUTH EAST ASIA, the Tribunal canceled the penalty u/s 270A due to the vague notice. Both decisions favored the assessee. en-us Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:28:12 +0530 Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:28:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78498 The Appellate Tribunal considered two issues: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s 270A. For the first, the Tribunal found the penalty notice defective as it did not specify the offense committed by the assessee, following the precedent set in Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was directed to be deleted. Regarding penalty u/s 270A for misreporting income, the Tribunal noted the vague show cause notice lacking specific sub-clauses under section 270A(9). Since the AO made ad hoc disallowances without clear mention of sub-clauses, the assessee qualified for immunity u/s 270A(6)(b). Citing SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SOUTH EAST ASIA, the Tribunal canceled the penalty u/s 270A due to the vague notice. Both decisions favored the assessee. Highlights Income Tax Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:28:12 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78498