https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449641 The Bombay HC ruled in favor of the assessee in a penalty case under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee incorrectly classified income from transfer of depreciable asset as long-term capital gain instead of short-term capital gain under Section 50. The court held that the assessee neither concealed income nor furnished incorrect particulars, having shown correct sale consideration and depreciation. The misclassification was based on bonafide belief that the asset was long-term since it was held for over three years. The court emphasized that merely making an unsustainable legal claim does not constitute furnishing incorrect particulars, citing Reliance Petroproducts precedent. en-us Wed, 07 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Feb 2024 07:30:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449641 The Bombay HC ruled in favor of the assessee in a penalty case under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee incorrectly classified income from transfer of depreciable asset as long-term capital gain instead of short-term capital gain under Section 50. The court held that the assessee neither concealed income nor furnished incorrect particulars, having shown correct sale consideration and depreciation. The misclassification was based on bonafide belief that the asset was long-term since it was held for over three years. The court emphasized that merely making an unsustainable legal claim does not constitute furnishing incorrect particulars, citing Reliance Petroproducts precedent. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449641