Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Claim of any expenditure has to be ...

Case Laws Income Tax

November 1, 2012

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Claim of any expenditure has to be proved with corroborative evidence - Entries in the books of accounts or auditors reports or Board of Directors Meeting cannot take place of a piece of genuine evidence. - penalty confirmed - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Claim of any expenditure has to be ...

Case Laws Income Tax

November 1, 2012

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...

This case deals with the levy of penalties u/ss 271AAA and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in relation to various additions made to the assessee's income based on seized...

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...

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

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 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...

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) claimed in the original return and later in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act,...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - wrong claim of set off loss - explanation was not found false - no iota of evidence of concealment of any fact relating to particulars of income...

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) involved an addition based on estimation by the Assessing Officer, which was later re-estimated by the CIT(A) to disallow 10% of the...

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - forex loss was claimed as revenue expenditure - inadvertent claim of expenditure would not, ipso facto, amount to concealment of income...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Revenue expenditure or not - expenses on NPA’s - merely because the assessee has claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or not...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - merely for the reason that the said expenditure was claimed as a revenue expenditure would not justify imposition of penalty under Sec....

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - bogus claim of deduction under Section 35CCA - penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed - HC

Quick Updates: