<?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 (7) TMI 30 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773962</link>
    <description>A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act cannot be sustained where the Section 274 notice is vague and does not specify whether the charge is concealment of income, furnishing inaccurate particulars, or both. Applying the co-ordinate bench view and jurisdictional High Court principle, a defective notice vitiates the penalty proceedings. The penalty notice was therefore bad in law and the penalty order was unsustainable in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2025 08:47:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=832817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 30 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773962</link>
      <description>A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act cannot be sustained where the Section 274 notice is vague and does not specify whether the charge is concealment of income, furnishing inaccurate particulars, or both. Applying the co-ordinate bench view and jurisdictional High Court principle, a defective notice vitiates the penalty proceedings. The penalty notice was therefore bad in law and the penalty order was unsustainable in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773962</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>