Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Disclosure of relevant facts - 1/5th ROC ...

Penalty Not Justified u/s 271(1)(c) If Taxpayer Fully Disclosed Facts and Did Not Appeal Assessment Addition.

March 15, 2019

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Disclosure of relevant facts - 1/5th ROC expenditure allowable u/s 35D - if all necessary details were made available by the assessee, the mere fact that the addition made in the course of assessment proceedings in the peculiar facts was not challenged in appeal by itself is neither here nor there is not sufficient to levy of penalty.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Disclosure of relevant facts - 1/5th ROC ...

Penalty Not Justified u/s 271(1)(c) If Taxpayer Fully Disclosed Facts and Did Not Appeal Assessment Addition.

March 15, 2019

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

The ITAT ruled that penalties under sections 271(1)(c) and 270A against the taxpayer were improper and directed their deletion. The tribunal held that merely making an...

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...

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...

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) - 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...

MAT is paid, additions were made to regular income, penalty not levied – 115JB, 271(1)(c)

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - property dealer - addition on account of cash retained - The facts of the case may justify the addition in the quantum case, but the parameters...

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...

Penalty levied u/ss 271(1)(c) and 271AAA for unexplained investment and addition made by adopting net profit as per the books of accounts at 12.85% on the suppressed...

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 proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Failure of the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account - burden of proof - The ITAT acknowledged the...

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...

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) - assessee disclosed all the true facts relating to the land - it may be a good case for making addition since there was difference between the...

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - Scope of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act cannot be widened later to include within its scope such additions which were not...

Quick Updates: