Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Director’s remuneration - reallocation ...

No Penalty Imposed for Incorrect Legal Claim on Director's Remuneration Reallocation u/s 271(1)(c) and 80IC Exemption.

November 29, 2017

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Director’s remuneration - reallocation out of managerial remuneration to different units - claim of exemption u/s 80IC - at most, it was a case of the assessee making an incorrect claim in law which cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - no penalty - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Director’s remuneration - reallocation ...

No Penalty Imposed for Incorrect Legal Claim on Director's Remuneration Reallocation u/s 271(1)(c) and 80IC Exemption.

November 29, 2017

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...

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...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) imposed on the legal heir - any sum referred in section 159(1) does not include the penalty proceedings on the legal representative under section...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - bogus claim of deduction under Section 35CCA - penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed - HC

To impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c), willful concealment is not an essential ingredient - HC

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...

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...

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...

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) was imposed for denying deduction u/s 80DD for a disabled person with over 80% disability. The assessee, a retired individual, had submitted...

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

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 levied u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 35 - AO has not brought out his case as to why penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act...

Penalty being 300% by invoking Section 271(1)(c) - return was revised before completion of assessment - Revenue is not justified in imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - HC

Quick Updates: