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...

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...

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...

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...

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

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.271AAB - Belated filing of regular return after search - Penalty cannot be levied u/s.271AAB of the Act, in respect of income disclosed in regular return of...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - estimation of income - bogus purchases - penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied where the addition is made on estimate basis - AT

Penalty levied on the assessee/Trust under Section 273(2)(a) and under Section 140A(3) - filing NIL estimate of advance tax and nonpayment of the self assessment tax -...

Levy of penalty - there is change in opinion and basis for levy of penalty for concealment varies - there is no merit in levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the...

Quick Updates: