Home Highlights October 2013 Year 2013 This

You may also like:

1. The crux pertains to levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income regarding capital gains computation on sale...

2. Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) - assessee had failed to provide full submissions - penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act deserves to be...

3. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - recording of specific finding or not? - In para 7 of the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer held that it is found to be a fit...

4. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - on account of survey, if the assessee has offered additional income, it cannot be a ground to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) unless...

5. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income has not been made out against the assessee. - Though, similar disallowances were made by...

6. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) has given direction to the Assessing Officer to levy penalty equivalent to 100% tax under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Mere estimate of...

7. Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Addition of LTCG - Assessing Officer while recording satisfaction has invoked both the charges of section 271(1)(c) - ambiguity and...

8. Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for two types of additions: (1) the addition made u/s 50C on the difference between stamp duty value and sale...

9. To impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c), willful concealment is not an essential ingredient - HC

10. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by the Assessing Officer solely based on the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission withdrawing immunity from penalty and...

11. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - accrual of income for assessee society - In assessee`s appeal assessing officer treated contribution towards welfare Fund and Hospital Fund as...

12. The Assessing Officer (AO) consciously deleted irrelevant portions from the show cause notice, mentioning only the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income....

13. This case deals with the levy of penalties u/ss 271AAA and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in relation to various additions made to the assessee's income based on seized...

14. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed for an ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of expenses made by the Assessing Officer....

15. The Appellate Tribunal held that the penalty imposed u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with notices u/s 142(1) was not legally valid. The Assessing Officer failed to...