https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765495 ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under section 270A cannot be sustained without specifying the specific limb under which penalty is levied. The AO failed to clarify whether penalty was for under-reporting or mis-reporting of income and did not specify which offense under section 270A(9) was committed. Regarding late PF/ESI deposits, the issue was adequately disclosed in Form 3CD and was debatable at assessment time, with the legal position settled later by SC in Checkmate Services case. For TDS disallowance on car loan interest, details were furnished in audit report and assessee anticipated obtaining certificate under section 201. The tribunal found no misrepresentation or suppression of facts, ruling in favor of assessee. 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=765495 ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under section 270A cannot be sustained without specifying the specific limb under which penalty is levied. The AO failed to clarify whether penalty was for under-reporting or mis-reporting of income and did not specify which offense under section 270A(9) was committed. Regarding late PF/ESI deposits, the issue was adequately disclosed in Form 3CD and was debatable at assessment time, with the legal position settled later by SC in Checkmate Services case. For TDS disallowance on car loan interest, details were furnished in audit report and assessee anticipated obtaining certificate under section 201. The tribunal found no misrepresentation or suppression of facts, ruling in favor of assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765495