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

Penalty for Inaccurate Income Details Invalidated Due to Lack of Evidence on Taxpayer's Good Faith in ALP Computation.

July 31, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

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 for Inaccurate Income Details Invalidated Due to Lack of Evidence on Taxpayer's Good Faith in ALP Computation.

July 31, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

Penalty imposed u/s 114(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal export by arranging lorries. Lack of admissible evidence showing knowledge of goods...

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...

Undervaluation of imported goods - Patchouli Oil - The CESTAT found that the rejection of the declared value lacked legal basis and was unsupported by evidence. The...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Appellate Tribunal observed that the appellant, during reassessment proceedings, had filed their return of income but failed to provide...

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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal and directed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to be deleted. The Assessing Officer...

This case deals with the validity of a declaration under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) for service tax dues. The taxpayer was issued a show cause...

Income Tax: Proposed amendments to section 271FAA clarify penalty applicability for inaccurate information or non-compliance with due diligence requirements u/s 285BA...

Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) - period of limitation - treatment of lease rent income - in the revised return, assessee claimed the same as income from house property to claim...

The assessee challenged the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for short credit of sale consideration received from the sale of copyrights and cable rights. The issue...

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the addition u/s 68 for alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gains due to off-market cash purchase of shares. The taxpayer's claim for deduction...

Smuggling - illegal importation of the seized gold - Confiscation of the gold and Indian currency - The Tribunal found no evidence linking the seized Indian currency to...

CESTAT Mumbai held that confiscation of imported goods and imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act for forged Special Import Licenses lacked clear evidence...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowances in the quantum assessment order - whether any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars proved? - Tribunal directs...

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...

Quick Updates: