The case involved a dispute over penalty imposition u/ss ...

Levy of penalty against estimated income: ITAT rules penalty invalid due to inconsistent grounds for imposition. Precedents cited. Assessee's appeal allowed.

Case Laws Income Tax

July 1, 2024

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 assessing officer initially alleged 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' under 271(1)(c) but later changed the basis for penalty imposition. The Tribunal held that the penalty order was invalid as the AO's satisfaction for penalty imposition was not consistent, citing precedents like New Sorathia Engineering and CIT vs. Manu Engineering Works. The Tribunal ruled that when the AO confirms penalty on a different ground than the original satisfaction under 271(1B), the penalty under 271(1)(c) is not legally sustainable. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The case involved a dispute over penalty imposition u/ss ...

Levy of penalty against estimated income: ITAT rules penalty invalid due to inconsistent grounds for imposition. Precedents cited. Assessee's appeal allowed.

Case Laws Income Tax

July 1, 2024

You may also like:

Penalty u/s 271D or 271E - Penalty u/s.271D or 271E of the Act is concerned, those are independent proceedings and having nothing to do with assessment proceedings or...

Levy of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - The failure of the Assessing Officer to record such satisfaction makes the order levying penalty invalid and bad in law and such...

The Appellate Tribunal held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on estimated additions due to bogus purchases from hawala dealers was unjustified as the assessee failed to...

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...

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) involved an addition based on estimation by the Assessing Officer, which was later re-estimated by the CIT(A) to disallow 10% of the...

The ITAT Mumbai ruled on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for estimation of income on bogus purchases. The tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on additions made on an...

Levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - estimation of disallowance at 50% of commission and improvement expenditure - in this case, the additions were made on the basis 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...

Section 271(1)(c) penalty was held invalid due to improper issuance of notice, as no proceedings were pending when the notice was issued on 19.12.2019. Section 271A...

Levy of penalty u/s. 221 - default the payment of TDS to the government - assessee in default - the Assessing Officer levied penalty at very exorbitant rate that 5% pm...

Levy of penalty u/s 54(1)(2) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 - men-rea - The Court concluded that mens rea is indeed an essential prerequisite for imposing a penalty under...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Penalty order did not specify the particular limb under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is levied. AO has not specified that penalty is either levied...

Levy of penalty u/s 158BFA(2) - penalty has been levied on the amount of undisclosed income without providing any working of maximum and minimum penalty leviable - No penalty - AT

Levy of penalty - the assessee agreed to such addition in the proceedings under section 263 of the Act, cannot be the ground for not levying the penalty.

Penalty u/s 270A was imposed by disallowing 30% of indexed cost of development expenses concerning Long Term Capital Gain offered by the assessee due to failure to...

Quick Updates: