The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of penalty u/s ...

Penalty issue: AO didn't specify charges or record proper satisfaction. Vague notice invalidates penalty. Assessee wins!

Case Laws Income Tax

June 25, 2024

The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was questioned whether a precise charge was brought against the assessee and if the assessing officer had recorded proper satisfaction. The assessee offered additional income during a search related to inflated marketing expenses. The Tribunal found that the assessing officer did not specify the charge in the penalty proceedings notice, rendering the initiation of penalty proceedings invalid. The vague notice issued was deemed void, leading to the penalty order being quashed in favor of the assessee.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of penalty u/s ...

Penalty issue: AO didn't specify charges or record proper satisfaction. Vague notice invalidates penalty. Assessee wins!

Case Laws Income Tax

June 25, 2024

You may also like:

The assessment u/s 153C mandates the recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer (AO) upon discovery of material likely to "have a bearing on the determination of...

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...

The assessee challenged the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for short credit of sale consideration received from the sale of copyrights and cable rights. The issue...

The Assessing Officer (AO) consciously deleted irrelevant portions from the show cause notice, mentioning only the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income....

Penalty u/s 271AAB - Defects in the notice issued u/s 274 - CIT(A) reduced the penalty to 10% applying provisions of Section 271AAB(a) of the Act as against penalty...

Penalty u/s 271D - violation of provisions u/s 269SS - cash receipt claimed as advance against sales - recording of the satisfaction by the AO is sine qua non for...

Validity of Assessment u/s 153C - Notice issued by any officer other than jurisdictional AO - the entire conspectus of the case, it appears that the AO had recorded the...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non recording of satisfaction - When satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act is recorded by the AO in...

The ITAT held that for penalty u/s 271D for contravention of section 269SS, recording satisfaction by AO is mandatory. Citing Jaya Laxmi Rice Mills case, it emphasized...

The penalty notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or...

Notice u/s 148 - AO has not recorded any reasons for re-assessment proceedings and merely acted on the borrowed satisfaction recorded by another AO without jurisdiction...

Proceedings u/s. 153C r.w.s. 153A - Recording of satisfaction - CIT (Appeals) not given finding that what basis he came to such conclusion that there was a recording 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. 271B - failure to get accounts audited - When a particular authority has been designated to record his satisfaction on any particular issue, then it is...

Absence of valid satisfaction recorded by AO before initiating assessment under special provision where search took place. Satisfaction note did not reveal AO's averment...

Quick Updates: