Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) involved an addition based on ...

Expenditure disallowance dispute, no concealment - ITAT deletes penalty (1)(c.

Case Laws Income Tax

September 7, 2024

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 expenditure while adjudicating the quantum appeal. It was not disputed that the assessee had furnished details regarding expenditure and income in the return of income. The disallowance by the revenue was due to the fact that the claim was not acceptable to them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. UP State Bridge Corporation Ltd held that where the assessee had furnished certain details regarding expenditure and income in the return, which were not found inaccurate, nor could be viewed as concealment of income, merely because the claim was not accepted or was not acceptable by the revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The ITAT held that no penalty can be levied in a case where the disallowance of expenditure is estimated and was inclined to delete the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer, deciding in favor of the assessee.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) involved an addition based on ...

Expenditure disallowance dispute, no concealment - ITAT deletes penalty (1)(c.

Case Laws Income Tax

September 7, 2024

You may also like:

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Disallowance of interest expenditure under section 43B as well as disallowance export product development expenses - Just because the assessee...

Disallowances under section 30(1) - expenditure incurred on repair and renovation of renting premises allowed - HC

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance u/s 40 (a)(ia) only for lack of payment of TDS while the payment was bonafide - Though the failure on the part of the...

Disallowance of expenses made u/s.37(1) - disallowance of expenditure on adhoc basis made by the ld. AO by giving a categorical finding that the ld. AO had not even...

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of bogus purchases by applying the profit rate - Once there is no reason to disbelieve the sales made by the assessee and...

Disallowance of expenditure u/s 37(1) - Amount paid as penalty for using electricity during restricted hours - the amount paid being penalty, the AO was justified in...

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - disallowance of capital expenditure of Research and Development - The facts material to the computation were not produced - levy of...

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

Disallowance of proportionate interest u/s. 36(1)((iii) - loan taken for construction of building for the year under consideration on which the assets were not put to...

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of interest expenditure - The findings of the AO may be sufficient to make disallowance in quantum on the theory of preponderance of...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - for such lump-sum disallowance out of wages on the basis of presumption, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable - AT

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....

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...

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...

Quick Updates: