Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Tribunal found no ...

Case Laws Income Tax

April 27, 2024

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Tribunal found no justification for imposing a penalty as the assessee had sufficient cash balances and transparently recorded the land purchase in the books, supported by audit reports. Emphasized that agreeing to additions in quantum proceedings does not automatically warrant a penalty. - Regarding the issue related to Contractual Receipts Discrepancy: Considering the meager amount of discrepancy compared to the total income, lack of mala fide intention, and explanation regarding accounting practices, the Tribunal deemed the penalty unjustified. Overall, the Tribunal concluded that neither issue warranted the imposition of penalties, thereby ruling in favor of the assessee.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Tribunal found no ...

Case Laws Income Tax

April 27, 2024

You may also like:

Levy of penalties under various sections - The Appellate Tribunal, in a consolidated order, addressed several appeals concerning penalties imposed under various sections...

This case deals with the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, imposed for disallowance of losses on forex derivatives treated as speculative losses and...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee did not disclose non-eligibility...

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...

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - claim of incorrect deduction u/s 80GGA - The Appellate Tribunal analyzed the timeline of events and noted that the assessee had...

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 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...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - Non-compliance with a notice issued u/s 142(1) - The Tribunal noted that in a previous round of proceedings, a penalty under section 271(1)(b) of...

Levy of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The ITAT ruled that since there was no variation between the returned and assessed income, there was no concealment of income by the...

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)(c) - disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 35 - AO has not brought out his case as to why penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act...

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....

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)(b) - no compliance to notice u/s 142(1) - The AO levied the penalty for non-compliance of notice dated 13.06.2016, however, there is no reference of...

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...

Quick Updates: