Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
By creating an account you can:
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All TMI Notes
of of All TMI Notes
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bombay High Court rules penalty under Sec 271(1)(c) invalid due to lack of clear notice on inaccurate particulars.</h1> The Bombay High Court judgment [2020 (6) TMI 305] addresses the complexities of penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, focusing on the differentiation between 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.' The case involved a penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer after disallowing a deduction claimed by the appellant. The court analyzed whether the penalty for inaccurate particulars was valid, emphasizing the necessity of precise and unambiguous notices under Section 274. It concluded that the penalty was unsustainable, as the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars was not substantiated, highlighting the importance of distinguishing genuine errors from tax evasion.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 