Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - income accrued in India - in appeal in ...

Delhi High Court Rules on Section 271(1)(c) Penalty: Recognizes Substantial Question of Law, Making Penalty Debatable.

May 30, 2019

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - income accrued in India - in appeal in quantum proceedings has admitted by Honourable Delhi High court in the case of the assessee as substantial question of law - the issue becomes debatable - penalty cannot be levied

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - income accrued in India - in appeal in ...

Delhi High Court Rules on Section 271(1)(c) Penalty: Recognizes Substantial Question of Law, Making Penalty Debatable.

May 30, 2019

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

Penalty u/s 271C -LTA - Mere admission of the appeal by the High Court on the substantial questions of law as have been quoted above, would make it apparent that the...

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the assessing officer against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, holding that no substantial question of law...

The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of short-term loss claimed by the assessee in the Profit and Loss Account, holding that the shares were acquired under a normal...

Jurisdiction of civil court u/s 34 of SARFAESI Act was in question. Suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction was rejected by lower courts under Order...

Substantial question of law to be made u/s 260A - prerequisite of admission of the appeal before the High court - The ITAT hold that the assessee had correctly offered...

Substantial question of law to be made out u/s 260A or not? - Undisclosed income surrendered during the Search and Seizure action - to be taxed at normal rate or tax...

The Supreme Court held that the High Court should formulate the second substantial question of law proposed by the Revenue regarding whether violation of conditions u/s...

The case pertains to additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus share application money and commission for bogus accommodation entries. The ITAT deleted...

Addition u/s 68 - substantial question of law - The Supreme court has held that, the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts...

Deposits made by assessee in Krishi Bank were fixed deposit investments, not trading activity. Loss suffered when bank went into liquidation is capital loss, not...

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...

Levy of penalties u/ss 122 and 129 of CGST/SGST Acts - expiry of e-way bill - mens rea in penalty imposition. Technically, violation of law by petitioner in transporting...

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - scope of Section 275(1A) - once substantial question of law against quantum additions are admitted by Hon’ble HC u/s 260A, the tribunal shall...

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

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....

Quick Updates: