Penalty u/s 271G - filing of document within two months before ...

Penalty u/s 271G Unjustified if Assessing Officer Has Doubt; Actus Reus Must Be Clearly Proven.

January 12, 2015

Case Laws Income Tax HC

Penalty u/s 271G - filing of document within two months before Transfer pricing officer (TPO) - Ambiguity or doubt in the mind of the Assessing Officer does not justify imposition of penalty, when the actus reas itself is not proved and established. - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271G - filing of document within two months before ...

Penalty u/s 271G Unjustified if Assessing Officer Has Doubt; Actus Reus Must Be Clearly Proven.

January 12, 2015

Case Laws Income Tax HC

You may also like:

In a case concerning unexplained credit u/s 68, the assessee proved the identity and genuineness of share applicants, although their creditworthiness was questioned. The...

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...

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Assessing Officer to usurp the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment - The first Assessing Officer has made the reassessment after...

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...

Penalty u/s 270A was imposed by disallowing 30% of indexed cost of development expenses concerning Long Term Capital Gain offered by the assessee due to failure to...

Penalty u/s 271G – Failure to maintain documents and accounts being audited - AO should have initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AA/271BA – the penalty levied u/s 271G...

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...

The ITAT dismissed Revenue's appeal, holding that penalty under s.271G for failure to furnish transfer pricing documentation cannot be levied against the German resident...

The High Court held that for levying penalty u/s 271D for violation of Section 269SS, the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction that the provisions were violated....

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...

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...

Penalty for non deduction of tax at source - bona fide belief proved - penalty set aside - AT

Penalty u/s. 271G - assessee did not provide any basis for comparing the transactions and it failed to provide any alternative method to benchmark the transactions which...

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...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - when the Assessing Officer is not able to prove that the assessee was guilty of fraud or gross or willful negligence, penalty cannot be sustained - AT

Quick Updates: