Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice u/s 274 - non ...

Tax Penalty Invalidated Due to Defective Notice; Tribunal Overturns Assessing Officer's Decision Under Income Tax Act.

February 1, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice u/s 274 - non specification of clear charge - the Tribunal held that that the penalty imposed by the A.O is not valid due to the lack of clarity in the notice, and the penalty is set aside.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice u/s 274 - non ...

Tax Penalty Invalidated Due to Defective Notice; Tribunal Overturns Assessing Officer's Decision Under Income Tax Act.

February 1, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

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 Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal u/s 249(4)(b) due to non-payment of advance tax. The assessee did not respond to the notice u/s 142(1) to clarify tax payment....

Penalty imposed u/s 271AAB - Defective notice - The Tribunal, has verbatim reproduced the penalty notice and we find that the notice is absolutely vague and none of the...

The ITAT held that the penalty u/s 271AAB could not be levied due to a defective notice. The AO failed to specify the specific limb for initiating penalty proceedings,...

ITAT invalidated reassessment proceedings due to jurisdictional defects in notice issuance under s.148. ITO Ward 3(2), Bulandsahar transferred assessee's records to ITO...

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - Emphasizing the principles outlined by the Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal reaffirmed the importance of...

The Appellate Tribunal considered two issues: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s 270A. For the first, the Tribunal found the penalty notice defective as it did not specify...

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for under reporting income - defective notice - The Tribunal agrees with the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the AO did not apply his mind...

Adjustment of excess service tax paid with subsequent service tax liability - case of Revenue is that Rule 6 (3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 do not provide for such...

The Appellate Tribunal found that the penalty was initiated u/s. 271DA instead of u/s. 271D, which led to confusion and violated the assessee's right to a fair hearing....

The case deals with the limitation period for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act. It is well-established that the limitation period commences...

Penalty imposed u/s 270A(9) for underreporting and misreporting of income was challenged due to non-specification of clear charge. The Tribunal held that underreporting...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - a proper satisfaction has been arrived at before initiation of penalty proceedings, and then a defect in notice including mere...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that every non-compliance with a notice u/s 142(1) gives a separate cause of action for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b)....

Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The appellant contended that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based solely on estimations, making it ineligible for...

Quick Updates: