Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Referring to a precedent set by the ...

Tribunal Rules Voluntary Income Disclosure as Bona Fide, Cancels Penalties for Bogus Vouchers in Tax Dispute.

May 2, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Referring to a precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal, the Tribunal emphasized that when an assessee voluntarily discloses additional income to resolve tax disputes, such disclosure should be considered bona fide. - The Tribunal observed that the vouchers for the purchases were self-made and subsequently treated as bogus by the AO. It concluded that this situation mirrored the circumstances in the Suresh Chandra Mittal case, where penalties were canceled due to the assessee's bona fide explanation. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the penalties imposed by the AO.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Referring to a precedent set by the ...

Tribunal Rules Voluntary Income Disclosure as Bona Fide, Cancels Penalties for Bogus Vouchers in Tax Dispute.

May 2, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

The assessee failed to file the original return of income, and the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for underreporting income. The assessee's authorized...

Penalty for non deduction of tax at source - bona fide belief proved - penalty set aside - AT

ITAT cancelled penalty under s271AAB as taxpayer's disclosure of Rs. 50 lakhs during search proceedings was voluntary and not connected to search findings. While...

ITAT ruled against penalty imposition under s.271AAB(1A)(b) at 60% rate. The tribunal emphasized that mere voluntary disclosure during search proceedings does not...

Explanation versus bona finde explanation versus proper disclosure - Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - AT

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and held that the penalty u/s 270A for under-reporting of income was not justified. The assessee had offered an additional...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Revenue may or may not agree with this understanding of law of the assessee but the fact that there can be a bona fide view to that effect...

Penalty u/s 270A - allegation of misreporting as per section 270A(9) - Penalty @200% in respect of excess claim of depreciation - The tribunal found that the...

The ITAT Mumbai addressed two key issues in the case. Firstly, regarding the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the tribunal held that the absence of a tick mark on the notice did...

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed u/ss 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the Income Tax Act for additional income brought to tax owing to a search and seizure action. The...

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) concerning the correct classification of income. The Assessing Officer treated the income as 'income...

The ITAT Mumbai upheld the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for bogus LTCG. Exemption u/s 10(38) denied as revised income declaration was not voluntary but in response to...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - loss on sale of machinery - The Assessee contested the penalty, arguing that the omission of adding the loss on the sale of machinery to the...

Assessee sold ancestral agricultural property for cash consideration to relatives, agriculturists. Though agricultural land sale proceeds exempt u/s 2(14), assessee bona...

Penalty proceedings u/s 270A - Applicable rate of penalty - The Appellate Tribunal noted that while the penalty notice cited under-reporting of income, the AO imposed...

Quick Updates: