https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345695 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was examined on two grounds: the notice's failure to specify the exact limb did not invalidate proceedings where the assessment and penalty orders showed the allegation of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, penalty was deleted on merits because the HRA claim, though wrong in law, was supported by the employer's form and family arrangement indicating bona fides, and the omission of FDR interest was treated as an inadvertent, bona fide mistake. An incorrect claim by itself was held not to amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. en-us Thu, 09 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Jul 2017 07:55:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345695 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was examined on two grounds: the notice's failure to specify the exact limb did not invalidate proceedings where the assessment and penalty orders showed the allegation of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, penalty was deleted on merits because the HRA claim, though wrong in law, was supported by the employer's form and family arrangement indicating bona fides, and the omission of FDR interest was treated as an inadvertent, bona fide mistake. An incorrect claim by itself was held not to amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345695