Home Highlights August 2018 Year 2018 This

You may also like:

1. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non recording of satisfaction - When satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act is recorded by the AO in...

2. 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...

3. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - recording of satisfaction - penalty initiated u/s 143(3) order for concealment of particulars of income - penalty imposed for furnishing of...

4. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) has given direction to the Assessing Officer to levy penalty equivalent to 100% tax under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Mere estimate of...

5. 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...

6. Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) - manadation of recording satisfaction which limb of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was triggered - In a given case, both limbs may...

7. Levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - since no specific satisfaction has been recorded by the Ld. Assessing Officer either in the body of the assessment order or in the show...

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

9. 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...

10. Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - Credit capital account with the narration ‘Gift received’ - There is no merit in the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act...

11. Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) - satisfaction relates to Section 271AAA - satisfaction of the AO qua a wrong section for the purposes of penalty of strict nature is...

12. The assessment order passed u/s 153C was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC instead of...

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

14. 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...

15. Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – mere admission of appeal by the High Court is sufficient to debar the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act - AT