<?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>2026 (7) TMI 1503 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795617</link>
    <description>A notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) must specify whether the proposed penalty concerns concealment of income particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The text notes that the High Court treated a notice lacking that specification as invalid and the resulting penalty as bad in law. It further records that the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition on grounds of delay and merits, while the document does not provide further reasoning.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:36:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=913323" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 1503 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795617</link>
      <description>A notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) must specify whether the proposed penalty concerns concealment of income particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The text notes that the High Court treated a notice lacking that specification as invalid and the resulting penalty as bad in law. It further records that the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition on grounds of delay and merits, while the document does not provide further reasoning.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795617</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>