Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Assessing Officer has to ...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Requires Assessing Officer's Satisfaction; Acceptance of Addition Alone Insufficient for Penalty.

July 31, 2021

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Assessing Officer has to record satisfaction before initiating penalty proceedings and the penalty proceedings are subject to judicial scrutiny independent of additions/disallowances made under assessment proceedings. Therefore, levy of penalty for the reason that the addition/disallowance has been accepted by the assessee is not sustainable ground - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Assessing Officer has to ...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Requires Assessing Officer's Satisfaction; Acceptance of Addition Alone Insufficient for Penalty.

July 31, 2021

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Addition of LTCG - Assessing Officer while recording satisfaction has invoked both the charges of section 271(1)(c) - ambiguity and...

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...

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 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...

HC ruled penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E require explicit satisfaction to be recorded by Assessing Officer during reassessment. Mere recording of...

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 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...

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....

The case involved a dispute over penalty imposition u/ss 271(1)(c) versus 271(1B) for additions related to estimated income from share trading transactions. The...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) has given direction to the Assessing Officer to levy penalty equivalent to 100% tax under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Mere estimate of...

Levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - since no specific satisfaction has been recorded by the Ld. Assessing Officer either in the body of the assessment order or in the show...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income has not been made out against the assessee. - Though, similar disallowances were made by...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - the assessment order, by a fiction of law, is deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings - HC

The crux pertains to levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income regarding capital gains computation on sale...

The Assessing Officer (AO) consciously deleted irrelevant portions from the show cause notice, mentioning only the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income....

Quick Updates: