Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Extension of Period of ...

Penalty Imposed u/s 271(1)(c) Despite Expired Limitation; Section 275 Scenarios Not Applicable in Officer Transfer Case.

August 13, 2018

Case Laws Income Tax HC

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Extension of Period of limitation which has otherwise expired - transferred from one officer to another officer - the three situations envisaged in Section 275 of the Act clearly do not cover the situation in the present case.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Extension of Period of ...

Penalty Imposed u/s 271(1)(c) Despite Expired Limitation; Section 275 Scenarios Not Applicable in Officer Transfer Case.

August 13, 2018

Case Laws Income Tax HC

You may also like:

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

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

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) - Defective notice u/s 274 - Emphasizing the principles outlined by the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal reaffirmed the importance of...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - when the assessee company had been assessed to tax under the deeming provisions of Sec. 115JB of the Act, therefore, on the basis of our...

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

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

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....

The ITAT held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not imposable on the assessee. The assessee had voluntarily paid tax on income from sale of shares three years prior to...

The key points are regarding the penalty imposed u/s 271D read with Section 269SS, and the issue of whether the penalty orders were time-barred. The Assessing Officer...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed despite the assessee withdrawing the exemption claim u/s 10(38) for Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of penny stocks and offering...

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...

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...

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...

Quick Updates: