Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee claimed depreciation u/s 32 on ...

No Penalty Imposed u/s 271(1)(c) Due to Doubt on Depreciation Claim for BOT Road Construction.

August 3, 2019

Case Laws Income Tax HC

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee claimed depreciation u/s 32 on road constructed on Build-Operate-Transfer basis which was denied - the Revenue had itself accepted that there was a doubt and that is why the clarification of 2014 was issued. Had it been so cut and dried there was no occasion for the Board to have issued the clarification and infact, this is precisely what weighed with CIT(A) and ITAT - no penalty

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee claimed depreciation u/s 32 on ...

No Penalty Imposed u/s 271(1)(c) Due to Doubt on Depreciation Claim for BOT Road Construction.

August 3, 2019

Case Laws Income Tax HC

You may also like:

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...

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) - 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

The Appellate Tribunal held that the right to collect toll in a BOT project constitutes an intangible asset, allowing for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Citing a...

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...

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 u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - adjustment made u/s 92CA - penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the adjustment made u/s 92CA is 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...

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...

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....

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...

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 under section 271(1)(c) - disallowance of depreciation - he explanation given by the assessee for the claim of depreciation is neither bona fide nor...

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...

Quick Updates: