<?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>2025 (4) TMI 661 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768747</link>
    <description>The SC/Tribunal examined the validity of a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. It found the notice defective for not specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal ruled the defect was substantive, not procedural, and thus not curable under Section 292B. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed, emphasizing the need for clear, specific penalty notices.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2025 14:37:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=813840" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 661 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768747</link>
      <description>The SC/Tribunal examined the validity of a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. It found the notice defective for not specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal ruled the defect was substantive, not procedural, and thus not curable under Section 292B. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed, emphasizing the need for clear, specific penalty notices.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768747</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>