The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered the levy of penalty ...

Penalty: The tribunal ruled in favor of the taxpayer, citing a legal precedent. Penalties were not justified due to inadvertent errors.

Case Laws Income Tax

June 29, 2024

The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for disallowance of prior period expenditure and ad hoc disallowance due to non-filing of relevant documents. The assessee inadvertently claimed a higher share of indexed costs of construction and improvement. Citing the case law RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD., it was established that a mere claim, even if rejected by the Assessing Officer, does not warrant penalty. The additional indexed costs of improvement claimed by the assessee were found to be inadvertent and did not result in any benefit. Therefore, the penalty was not justified as there was no evidence of the assessee benefiting from the inaccurate particulars of income. The appeal by the assessee was allowed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered the levy of penalty ...

Penalty: The tribunal ruled in favor of the taxpayer, citing a legal precedent. Penalties were not justified due to inadvertent errors.

Case Laws Income Tax

June 29, 2024

You may also like:

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...

Proceedings against importer when the sole proprietor of M/s Ganpati Enterprises had expired - mis -declaration and short payment of duty - imposition of penalty on...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - An order in the name of dead person - The Appellate Tribunal acknowledged that the penalty order was indeed issued in the name of a deceased...

The Appellate Tribunal examined the validity of penalty proceedings u/s 270A due to the failure to specify relevant clauses. It was held that the penalty proceedings...

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,...

Penalty u/r 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - charge of abating the evasion of duty by the Main Party - The appellant argued that since the main party's case of duty...

Penalty proceedings for a default committed by a deceased - legal representatives - Levy of penalty u/s 271B for non-furnishing of Tax Audit Report within the prescribed...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(C) for non-filing of income tax return despite taxable income and interest income. Assessee...

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 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...

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...

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) related to the addition of closing stock. The AO levied penalty on an addition u/s 36(1)(iii) that...

The case involved a dispute over penalty imposition u/ss 271(1)(c) versus 271(1B) for additions related to estimated income from share trading transactions. The...

The ITAT Mumbai considered a case involving a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal found the...

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...

Quick Updates: