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:

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...

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 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...

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...

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...

Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - no proper recording of satisfaction by the AO for rejecting the suomoto disallowance made by the Assessee - The Tribunal found that in...

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - validity of show cause notice issued - The ITAT emphasized the legal necessity for the AO to clearly specify the nature of the default—whether...

Penalty levied u/s. 271B - Defective notice - vague and unspecific notice - failure to furnish the audit report u/s 44AB before the due date - Notice proposing penalty...

Validity of notice u/s 158BD - Valid satisfaction - vital and mandatory requirement of recording the satisfaction under section 158BD were absent while issuing notice - HC

Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Addition of LTCG - Assessing Officer while recording satisfaction has invoked both the charges of section 271(1)(c) - ambiguity and...

Reopening of assessment - the authority has not recorded proper satisfaction/approval, before issue of notice u/s. 148. AO has mechanically issued notice u/s. 148 of the...

Quick Updates: