Whether the Tribunal is right in reversing in deleting the ...

Case Laws Income Tax

July 3, 2014

Whether the Tribunal is right in reversing in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act solely on the ground that the High Court has admitted the appeal and, therefore, the issue can be stated to be debatable - Held no - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Whether the Tribunal is right in reversing in deleting the ...

Case Laws Income Tax

July 3, 2014

You may also like:

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - Emphasizing the principles outlined by the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal reaffirmed the importance of...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - Non-compliance with a notice issued u/s 142(1) - The Tribunal noted that in a previous round of proceedings, a penalty under section 271(1)(b) of...

This case deals with the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, imposed for disallowance of losses on forex derivatives treated as speculative losses and...

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) concerning the correct classification of income. The Assessing Officer treated the income as 'income...

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - While apparently surrendering all the income on its own by the Assessee ought not to have attracted penalty for concealment under Section...

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....

The Appellate Tribunal considered two issues: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s 270A. For the first, the Tribunal found the penalty notice defective as it did not specify...

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...

The case involved a dispute over penalty imposition u/ss 271(1)(c) versus 271(1B) for additions related to estimated income from share trading transactions. The...

The ITAT Mumbai addressed two key issues in the case. Firstly, regarding the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the tribunal held that the absence of a tick mark on the notice did...

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...

Levy of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The ITAT ruled that since there was no variation between the returned and assessed income, there was no concealment of income by the...

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for under reporting income - defective notice - The Tribunal agrees with the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the AO did not apply his mind...

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - Since the Tribunal deleted the addition and ordered expunging the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1C) no reason to...

Quick Updates: