https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461421 ITAT Mumbai quashed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) due to defective notice. The penalty order failed to specify whether it was levied for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the precedent in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh case from Bombay HC, the tribunal held that non-specification of the charge in the penalty notice renders it invalid. The penalty order for AY 2010-11 was consequently quashed. en-us Thu, 06 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Apr 2025 14:05:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461421 ITAT Mumbai quashed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) due to defective notice. The penalty order failed to specify whether it was levied for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Following the precedent in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh case from Bombay HC, the tribunal held that non-specification of the charge in the penalty notice renders it invalid. The penalty order for AY 2010-11 was consequently quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 06 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461421