Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Even if ld. AO has treated the amount as ...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Not Warranted for Capital Expenditure; Depreciation Claim Allowed as an Expense.

July 1, 2016

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Even if ld. AO has treated the amount as capital expenditure, certainly assessee will be entitled to claim depreciation but the crux is, it is allowable expenditure. Such situation certainly does not call for a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Even if ld. AO has treated the amount as ...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Not Warranted for Capital Expenditure; Depreciation Claim Allowed as an Expense.

July 1, 2016

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee company failed to provide bonafide explanation for inflated expenses claimed in revised return, contrary to audited...

No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed on the assessee for disallowance of depreciation. The ITAT held that the assessee did not deliberately claim depreciation with an...

ITAT upheld penalties imposed under s.271(1)(c) against appellant firm for multiple violations. Unexplained cash credits in partners' capital accounts violated...

The assessee had conceded the compensation income to be included as income from other sources. However, upon judicial examination, the compensation was found to be...

Penalty u/ s 271(1)(c) - Disallowance on account of personnel expenses, operative expenses and finance expenses - it a “mere disallowance” of an expense does not warrant...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 43B as well as disallowance export product development expenses - Just because the assessee...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Revenue expenditure or not - expenses on NPA’s - merely because the assessee has claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or not...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Mere making of a...

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - deduction claimed u/s 80IA - there being no factual basis for establishing that the expenses needed to be allocated and the expenses so...

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....

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - merely for the reason that the said expenditure was claimed as a revenue expenditure would not justify imposition of penalty under Sec....

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for excess deduction claimed u/s 10B. The assessee furnished all relevant facts for computing total income, and provided detailed...

Levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - What is clear is that the assessee has disclosed necessary facts in relation to various expenses including expenditure relatable to...

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - disallowance of depreciation - he explanation given by the assessee for the claim of depreciation is neither bona fide nor...

The assessee claimed deduction for compensation paid to farmers for acquiring mining rights, which was an allowable expenditure. The Assessing Officer allowed the...

Quick Updates: