Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for excess deduction claimed ...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted as assessee provided all facts for computing income & detailed explanations for deduction claim.

Case Laws Income Tax

August 12, 2024

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for excess deduction claimed u/s 10B. The assessee furnished all relevant facts for computing total income, and provided detailed explanations regarding the claim u/s 10B, including the number of manufacturing divisions, bifurcation of expenditure, and availability of carried forward losses. The explanation was not found false, and the onus to prove falsity lies on the revenue. The claim was an allowable deduction, though the quantum was reworked by the Assessing Officer using different arithmetic. All details and justifications were provided in the return itself. The amount of tax sought to be evaded under explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was indeterminable for imposing penalty. The assessee's decision to not appeal the reduction of claim does not imply lack of bona fides. The CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty, and no interference is warranted.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for excess deduction claimed ...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted as assessee provided all facts for computing income & detailed explanations for deduction claim.

Case Laws Income Tax

August 12, 2024

You may also like:

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 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...

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...

Levy of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The ITAT ruled that since there was no variation between the returned and assessed income, there was no concealment of income by the...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance u/s. 36(1)(iii) - In fact, the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings has given a detailed calculation related to interest...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - accrual of income for assessee society - In assessee`s appeal assessing officer treated contribution towards welfare Fund and Hospital Fund as...

The Assessing Officer (AO) consciously deleted irrelevant portions from the show cause notice, mentioning only the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income....

Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) - Unexplained Expenditure on Stamp Duty and Registration Charges made out of Undisclosed Income - There was no dishonest intent of the assessee...

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - the fact that the assessee and his son have declared the undisclosed income in their individual return of income and have paid taxes but capital...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - proof of contravention of provisions provided under explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) - On reference to the provisions of explanation 5A to...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee filed return of income in response to notice u/s 148 - No difference between returned income and assessed income - Assessee voluntarily...

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....

Levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - defective notice - it would be too technical and pedantic to take the view that because in the printed notice the inapplicable portion...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additional income was declared in survey u/s 133A - date of filing of return u/s 139(1) had not expired - The fact of “concealment of income” and...

Quick Updates: