https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778414 ITAT DELHI - AT held that notices issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c)/270A were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to specify which limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A (concealment vs. furnishing inaccurate particulars; under-reporting vs. misreporting) was charged and did not strike out irrelevant portions. Applying the full-bench precedent from ITAT MUMBAI, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) as bad in law and decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. en-us Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:02:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778414 ITAT DELHI - AT held that notices issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c)/270A were invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to specify which limb of section 271(1)(c)/270A (concealment vs. furnishing inaccurate particulars; under-reporting vs. misreporting) was charged and did not strike out irrelevant portions. Applying the full-bench precedent from ITAT MUMBAI, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) as bad in law and decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778414