https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795263 Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable where the notice did not specify whether concealment or inaccurate particulars was alleged, as the unstruck standard-form notice failed to communicate the precise charge. It was also not justified for a disallowance involving genuine employees' provident fund expenditure and divergent judicial views, absent false disclosure or deliberate tax evasion. Penalty under Section 270A for a weighted deduction claim was invalid because the claim was based on information available at filing, material facts were disclosed, and neither the notice nor order identified the applicable under-reporting circumstance. The penalties were deleted or quashed. en-us Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jul 2026 09:37:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795263 Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable where the notice did not specify whether concealment or inaccurate particulars was alleged, as the unstruck standard-form notice failed to communicate the precise charge. It was also not justified for a disallowance involving genuine employees' provident fund expenditure and divergent judicial views, absent false disclosure or deliberate tax evasion. Penalty under Section 270A for a weighted deduction claim was invalid because the claim was based on information available at filing, material facts were disclosed, and neither the notice nor order identified the applicable under-reporting circumstance. The penalties were deleted or quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795263