https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765496 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal against penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The AO had levied penalty after adding short term capital gains on securities transactions that were not offered to tax. However, the penalty notice and order failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The tribunal held that AO must provide clear categorical findings distinguishing between these two grounds when imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Due to this defective notice lacking specific classification, the penalty order was set aside. en-us Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Feb 2025 08:41:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765496 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal against penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The AO had levied penalty after adding short term capital gains on securities transactions that were not offered to tax. However, the penalty notice and order failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The tribunal held that AO must provide clear categorical findings distinguishing between these two grounds when imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Due to this defective notice lacking specific classification, the penalty order was set aside. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765496