https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774605 ITAT Dehradun quashed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the AO failed to specify whether proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The notice under Section 274 was issued in standard proforma without deleting irrelevant portions, indicating non-application of mind. Following SC precedent in Dilip N. Shroff case, the tribunal held that failure to record satisfaction about specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) renders penalty proceedings invalid. The assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jul 2025 08:39:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774605 ITAT Dehradun quashed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) as the AO failed to specify whether proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The notice under Section 274 was issued in standard proforma without deleting irrelevant portions, indicating non-application of mind. Following SC precedent in Dilip N. Shroff case, the tribunal held that failure to record satisfaction about specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) renders penalty proceedings invalid. The assessee's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774605