https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364164 Analysis concerns validity of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars and adequacy of the penalty notice. Tribunal found the penalty order issued after reassessment was within statutory time limits, so the time-bar challenge failed. The notice, however, did not specify which limb of the penal provision applied, and the Assessing Officers uncertainty about the charge was noted; reliance was placed on a precedent favouring the assessee on notice clarity. The classification of a sale as short-term capital and treatment of boundary walls as a depreciable asset under section 50 was background to the penalty issue. en-us Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Jan 2026 10:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364164 Analysis concerns validity of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars and adequacy of the penalty notice. Tribunal found the penalty order issued after reassessment was within statutory time limits, so the time-bar challenge failed. The notice, however, did not specify which limb of the penal provision applied, and the Assessing Officers uncertainty about the charge was noted; reliance was placed on a precedent favouring the assessee on notice clarity. The classification of a sale as short-term capital and treatment of boundary walls as a depreciable asset under section 50 was background to the penalty issue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364164