Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - when the assessee company had been ...

No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for company assessed u/s 115JB; Explanation 4 not applicable for 2014-15.

August 11, 2020

Case Laws Income Tax AT

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 aforesaid observations no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of additions/ disallowances made under the normal provisions of the Act could have been imposed upon the assessee. - As the case of the assessee before us is for A.Y 2014-15 therefore, the post-amended ‘Explanation 4’ to Sec. 271(1)(c) would not be applicable in its case. - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - when the assessee company had been ...

No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for company assessed u/s 115JB; Explanation 4 not applicable for 2014-15.

August 11, 2020

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

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) - there is no ‘tax sought to be evaded’, in terms of Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c), on which penalty could be levied - even as the asessee has...

Explanation versus bona finde explanation versus proper disclosure - Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - AT

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - proof of contravention of provisions provided under explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) - On reference to the provisions of explanation 5A to...

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 u/s 271(1)(c) - difference of income in the return filed u/s.139(1) and 153A - there was no such allegation that of assessee was found to be the owner of any...

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...

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 levied by the Assessing Officer solely based on the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission withdrawing immunity from penalty and...

Penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (c) - As the appellants had disclosed the income, after detection by the department and as per the terms of settlement, the assessing officer...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied on additional income voluntarily offered in the statement recorded u/s 132(4). However, no reference was made to corroborative...

Voluntary surrender of income by assessee cannot be considered concealment. AO failed to prove concealment, merely concluded voluntary surrender as concealment....

The core summary is that banks constituted as 'corresponding new banks' under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 are not covered...

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) - assessee had failed to provide full submissions - penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act deserves to be...

Quick Updates: