Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - scope of Section 275(1A) - once ...

High Court Admission of Law Question Requires Tribunal to Remand Penalty Decision to Assessing Officer for Reassessment.

August 29, 2019

Case Laws Income Tax AT

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 refrain from deciding even penalty on merits and the most appropriate course of action in such situations for tribunal shall be restore the matter back to the AO to adjudicate afresh levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) against assessee r.w.s. 274 & 275(1A) - remanded

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - scope of Section 275(1A) - once ...

High Court Admission of Law Question Requires Tribunal to Remand Penalty Decision to Assessing Officer for Reassessment.

August 29, 2019

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

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...

Contrary decision passed by A.O. against remand back order of Tribunal - Decision of the tribunal is binding on the Assessing Officer and he cannot pick up a word or...

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...

Rectification application u/s 254 - Tribunal not followed the decision on the identical facts by the Coordinate Bench which is confirmed by this Court - The Court...

The case involved a challenge to penalty orders u/ss 271D and 271E before the Appellate Tribunal. The issue revolved around the reassessment proceedings being quashed,...

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...

The Appellate Tribunal adjudicated on the issue of addition of interest income and penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee contended that the interest income from a Fixed...

The Appellate Tribunal examined the validity of penalty proceedings u/s 270A due to the failure to specify relevant clauses. It was held that the penalty proceedings...

Binding nature of Tribunal Order - Principle of “consistency” - Not only the Tribunal but all the Authorities subordinate to it are bound to follow and comply with the...

Approval u/s 80G(5) - eligibility - The tribunal had considered whether the law required significant charitable activities to be carried out to be eligible for...

Legality of revision of order of Tribunal u/s 254 on ground of retrospective overruling - Judicial decision acts retrospectively. Judges do not make law they only...

The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was questioned whether a precise charge was brought against the assessee and if the...

Reassessment proceedings were initiated based on the belief that the assessee failed to disclose all material facts necessary for completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of...

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 ITAT Mumbai considered a case involving a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal found the...

Quick Updates: