https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777336 ITAT Ahmedabad set aside a penalty under s.270A because the assessing officer failed to identify which distinct default - under-reporting or under-reporting as a consequence of misreporting - justified the levy. The penalty notice and order treated both defaults simultaneously, rendering the proceedings void for vagueness. Relying on precedent that distinguishes the different consequences and rates for the two defaults, the Tribunal held the penalty unsustainable in law and allowed the assessee's appeal. en-us Tue, 26 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Mar 2026 12:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777336 ITAT Ahmedabad set aside a penalty under s.270A because the assessing officer failed to identify which distinct default - under-reporting or under-reporting as a consequence of misreporting - justified the levy. The penalty notice and order treated both defaults simultaneously, rendering the proceedings void for vagueness. Relying on precedent that distinguishes the different consequences and rates for the two defaults, the Tribunal held the penalty unsustainable in law and allowed the assessee's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 26 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777336