Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of ...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) invalid for TP adjustment. AO relied on TPO without examining penalty imposition. Assessee computed ALP diligently.

Case Laws Income Tax

July 31, 2024

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - adjustment made u/s 92CA - penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the adjustment made u/s 92CA is not legally valid. CIT(A) rightly deleted addition as AO relied on adjustment made by TPO without examining whether penalty was imposable. Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) places onus on assessee to show ALP computed u/s 92C in good faith and due diligence. Assessee computed ALP per Section 92C, no dispute over MAM, PLI or timescale. AO/TPO adopted different comparables. AO did not allege lack of good faith and due diligence. AO failed to demonstrate specific act, fact or conduct proving lack of good faith and due diligence. Lack of due diligence in ALP determination not indicated or inferable. Conditions for invoking Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) did not exist. Revenue's appeal dismissed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of ...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) invalid for TP adjustment. AO relied on TPO without examining penalty imposition. Assessee computed ALP diligently.

Case Laws Income Tax

July 31, 2024

You may also like:

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...

Voluntary surrender of income by assessee cannot be considered concealment. AO failed to prove concealment, merely concluded voluntary surrender as concealment....

TP Adjustment - the TPO is erred in adopting CUP method for few transactions when he has accepted overwhelming majority of transactions under TNMM method. The DRP...

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...

Assessment proceedings examined assessee's claim relating to ICDS adjustment made in intimation u/s 143(1). AO issued notices seeking information, assessee provided...

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...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - AO initiated penalty on one limb of section 271(1)(c) and had imposed penalty on another limb - Third Member has upheld the view of AM that the...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - when we examine penalty levied on account of salary disallowance AO has merely made adhoc addition by way of guess work and the AO has not...

Transfer pricing officer (TPO) erred by considering non-associated enterprise (non-AE) revenue and costs while computing transfer pricing (TP) adjustment, contrary to...

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...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed for an ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of expenses made by the Assessing Officer....

This case deals with the levy of penalties u/ss 271AAA and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in relation to various additions made to the assessee's income based on seized...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition u/s 68 - Penalty has been levied in a mechanical manner without application of mind. In our view, this is a serious mistake in the...

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee company failed to provide bonafide explanation for inflated expenses claimed in revised return, contrary to audited...

Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for two types of additions: (1) the addition made u/s 50C on the difference between stamp duty value and sale...

Quick Updates: