SC dismisses SLP against the order that says Penalty Notice Must Clearly Identify the Charge

Tata Teleservices succeeded before the ITAT and Delhi HC on the ground that its Section 271(1)(c) notice did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. 

The Supreme Court has now dismissed the Revenue's SLP because of a 201-day delay in filing, expressly leaving the questions of law open - so the Supreme Court has not itself affirmed the substantive penalty principle.