Penalty u/s 270A was imposed by disallowing 30% of indexed cost ...

Penalty on Taxpayer Overturned Due to Bona Fide Explanation and Disclosure of Facts; Tribunal Deletes Section 270A Penalty.

September 5, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

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 furnish certain supporting evidence. The assessee had submitted all details before the Assessing Officer and explained the reason for not furnishing a few vouchers as they were misplaced but was willing to produce them. The Assessing Officer proceeded to levy penalty u/s 270A on an estimated basis. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's action of levying penalty cannot be countenanced. Considering the assessee's bonafide explanation and disclosure of material facts, and as the disallowance was purely on estimation, the Tribunal held it is not a fit case for penalty u/s 270A for underreporting of income. The penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was directed to be deleted, allowing the assessee's appeal.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 270A was imposed by disallowing 30% of indexed cost ...

Penalty on Taxpayer Overturned Due to Bona Fide Explanation and Disclosure of Facts; Tribunal Deletes Section 270A Penalty.

September 5, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

The assessee failed to file the original return of income, and the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for underreporting income. The assessee's authorized...

Explanation versus bona finde explanation versus proper disclosure - Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - AT

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Referring to a precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal, the Tribunal emphasized that when an assessee...

Penalty for non deduction of tax at source - bona fide belief proved - penalty set aside - AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Revenue may or may not agree with this understanding of law of the assessee but the fact that there can be a bona fide view to that effect...

Central excise duty exemption notification dated 01.03.2002 was denied, leading to recovery of duty, interest, and penalty. The extended period of limitation was invoked....

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving the disallowance of electricity expenses leading to a penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Tribunal noted the essential role of...

HC upheld penalty under s271(1)(c) for concealment of income where appellant transferred stock-in-trade at inflated market value and withdrew profits without full...

Penalty u/s 270A - under-reporting of income - the assessee’s case would squarely fall under the exception provided u/s 270A(6)(a) wherein, the assessee had given its...

Condonation of delay - delay of 280 days - sufficient cause - The Tribunal noted that the delay was due to the callous and lackadaisical approach of the appellant in not...

Penalty u/s 271(a)(c) - The explanation filed by the assessee about not disclosing interest income in the return of income was not bona fide - levy of penalty confirmed - AT

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - disallowance of depreciation - he explanation given by the assessee for the claim of depreciation is neither bona fide nor...

Imposition of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The explanation given by the assessee for the depreciation claim, is neither bona-fide, nor substantiated - penalty confirmed - HC

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - false claim of business expenditure - it is not a case where the explanation given by assessee was bona fide and there was full disclosure of...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee did not disclose non-eligibility...

Quick Updates: