Penalty u/s 271C - whether the respondent-assessee had made an ...

Court Rules Penalty u/s 271C Requires Deliberate Misrepresentation, Not Just an Erroneous Deduction Claim in Tax Returns.

August 6, 2021

Case Laws Income Tax HC

Penalty u/s 271C - whether the respondent-assessee had made an incorrect claim for deduction in its E-Return - an erroneous claim simpliciter does not automatically attract a penalty. It is only when an erroneous claim is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of facts or deliberate suppression of relevant material facts, that, a penalty is imposed after the deduction is denied. - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271C - whether the respondent-assessee had made an ...

Court Rules Penalty u/s 271C Requires Deliberate Misrepresentation, Not Just an Erroneous Deduction Claim in Tax Returns.

August 6, 2021

Case Laws Income Tax HC

You may also like:

Levy of penalty - Applicability of the substituted rule for imposition of penalty - The Supreme Court sided with the appellant, holding that the substituted rule from...

Penalty u/s 271C - failure to deduct TDS u/s 194C on External Development Charges - The High court noted that the applicability of Section 194C had been explicitly...

Penalty u/s 271C (1) (a) - delayed deposit of the TDS deducted by the assessee - When the non-deduction of the whole or any part of the tax, as required by or under the...

Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Contravention of Rule 8(3A) - penalty under Rule 25 is not permissible, but penalty under Rule 27 is to be imposed - AT

Levy of penalty - taking CENVAT Credit irregularly - it is the contention of the Assessee that there is some element of discretion available in the adjudicating officer...

The Appellate Tribunal considered the levy of penalty u/s 270A. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed the penalty u/s 270A(9)(a) for misrepresentation of facts and...

The adjudicating authority is bound to explain the alleged contraventions to the person proceeded against or their legal representatives. Rule 4(4) mandates...

The High Court considered the legality of a penalty imposed u/s 31(3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, due to the want of Form 28B. The issue was whether the defendants...

CENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - performa invoices - the documents required under the Rule 9 are not confined to merely invoices but these may be any documents,...

The High Court held that respondent No. 3 cannot avoid deciding the petitioners' application dated 20 December 2023 seeking an advance ruling on the taxability of sale...

The Madras High Court considered the issue of personal hearing notice u/s FEMA 1999. The Court held that Rule 4(3) does not require the reasoned opinion to be...

HC partially allowed the petition challenging GST late fee and penalty impositions. Court upheld late fee under Section 47(2) of GST Act for delayed annual return...

HC upheld validity of Rule 36(4) of CGST Rules, dismissing constitutional challenge. Court determined Rule 36(4) derives authority from Section 16 of CGST Act and...

Levy of penalty u/s 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - evasion of duty - The imposition of penalty on both the appellants is un-called for - since Appellant No.1,...

Levy of penalty u/s 271C - Period of limitation - In the present case, since penalty u/s 271C has not been initiated during the course of any proceedings, first part of...

Quick Updates: