<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Tribunal Overturns 200% Penalty for Income Misreporting Due to Vague Notice Lacking Clear Charge Specification.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83201</link>
    <description>Penalty imposed u/s 270A(9) for underreporting and misreporting of income was challenged due to non-specification of clear charge. The Tribunal held that underreporting and misreporting have different connotations and consequences. In the notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 270A, no specific charge or limb was specified. The Tribunal observed that the Delhi High Court in Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) had dealt with a case where the ingredients of sub-section 9 of Section 270A were not specified while imposing the penalty, ultimately affirming the deletion of the penalty. In the present case, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A without mentioning any sub-clause or specifying the limb for levying the pr.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2024 08:55:03 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2024 08:55:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tribunal Overturns 200% Penalty for Income Misreporting Due to Vague Notice Lacking Clear Charge Specification.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83201</link>
      <description>Penalty imposed u/s 270A(9) for underreporting and misreporting of income was challenged due to non-specification of clear charge. The Tribunal held that underreporting and misreporting have different connotations and consequences. In the notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 270A, no specific charge or limb was specified. The Tribunal observed that the Delhi High Court in Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) had dealt with a case where the ingredients of sub-section 9 of Section 270A were not specified while imposing the penalty, ultimately affirming the deletion of the penalty. In the present case, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A without mentioning any sub-clause or specifying the limb for levying the pr.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2024 08:55:03 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>