Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - estimation was not made on the basis of ...

Court Upholds Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Fraudulent Income Estimation Based on Bogus Transactions.

February 28, 2017

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - estimation was not made on the basis of unverifiable transactions but the estimation of income was based on specific transactions carried out fraudulently and proved as bogus with supporting material evidences found in the case of assessee - levy of penalty confirmed - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - estimation was not made on the basis of ...

Court Upholds Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Fraudulent Income Estimation Based on Bogus Transactions.

February 28, 2017

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

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...

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

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...

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...

The ITAT Surat held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not sustainable due to a defective notice and estimation of income on bogus purchases. The notice u/s 274 was...

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...

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...

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...

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...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - difference of income in the return filed u/s.139(1) and 153A - there was no such allegation that of assessee was found to be the owner of any...

Monetary limit for filing of appeal by revenue in case of penalty - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on bogus purchases - Quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are...

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) - Income disclosed only after the search and seizure operation - The High Court emphasized that Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c) deems...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition u/s 68 - Head changed from income under “PGBP” (as shown by the assessee) to addition U/s 68 - That there was some tax sought to be...

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...

Quick Updates: