https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770911 The Delhi HC upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed on disallowance of revenue expenditure. The AO had allowed 25% as depreciation and added the remaining 75% to income. While the AO contended the assessee wilfully attempted to reduce income, the CIT(A) found the issue debatable, making penalty inappropriate. The ITAT rejected the Revenue's appeal on procedural grounds, noting the penalty notice failed to specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was being invoked - concealment of income or furnishing incorrect particulars. The HC confirmed that vague notices not indicating the specific limb are invalid. en-us Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 May 2025 08:39:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770911 The Delhi HC upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed on disallowance of revenue expenditure. The AO had allowed 25% as depreciation and added the remaining 75% to income. While the AO contended the assessee wilfully attempted to reduce income, the CIT(A) found the issue debatable, making penalty inappropriate. The ITAT rejected the Revenue's appeal on procedural grounds, noting the penalty notice failed to specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was being invoked - concealment of income or furnishing incorrect particulars. The HC confirmed that vague notices not indicating the specific limb are invalid. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770911