Home Highlights June 2014 Year 2014 This

You may also like:

1. Deletion of disallowance of labour charges – assessee could not substantiate with corroborative evidences the genuineness of the cash components of the labour charges -...

2. Estimation of Profit/Section 40A(2)(b) - JV entered - sub-contracting - AO had formed a view that the assessee JV had suppressed its profit by making excessive payment...

3. Labour charges paid to the female relatives of the directors disallowed u/s 40A(2)(b) - there was no finding the effect that the labour charges paid were in excess of...

4. Disallowance of directors remuneration u/s 40A(2)(a) - A.O by misconstruing the scope and gamut of Sec. 40A(2)(a) had disallowed the entire amount of the directors...

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

6. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - estimation of income - bogus purchases - penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied where the addition is made on estimate basis - AT

7. Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(C) - deemed income being loss claimed and disallowed - The AO has also not specified the charge on which penalty is being levied - No penalty - AT

8. Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The appellant contended that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based solely on estimations, making it ineligible for...

9. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of bogus purchases by applying the profit rate - Once there is no reason to disbelieve the sales made by the assessee and...

10. 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...

11. MAT is paid, additions were made to regular income, penalty not levied – 115JB, 271(1)(c)

12. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Appellate Tribunal observed that the appellant, during reassessment proceedings, had filed their return of income but failed to provide...

13. Mere disallowance of expenses u/s 40A(3) would not invite penalty for concealing or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Assessee disclosed all particulars...

14. The ITAT Mumbai ruled on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for estimation of income on bogus purchases. The tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on additions made on an...

15. 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...