Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by the Assessing Officer solely ...

Income Tax penalties imposed without due process, failure to issue notice or allow explanation.

Case Laws Income Tax

October 4, 2024

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by the Assessing Officer solely based on the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission withdrawing immunity from penalty and prosecution, without adhering to the due process prescribed under the Act. The Assessing Officer failed to make reference to assessment proceedings, record satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, and issue notice u/s 274 before initiating penalty proceedings. The penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were arbitrary, not in accordance with law, and void ab initio. Regarding penalty u/s 271AAA, the Assessing Officer did not refer to the conditions prescribed, statement recorded u/s 132(4), or opportunity given to the assessee to explain the undisclosed income. Consequently, the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA was illegal, and the penalties levied u/s 271AAA were quashed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by the Assessing Officer solely ...

Income Tax penalties imposed without due process, failure to issue notice or allow explanation.

Case Laws Income Tax

October 4, 2024

You may also like:

The High Court examined the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the prescribed income-tax authority to issue notices u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. It held...

The court held that the notices issued u/s 133(6) and the subsequent notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act were invalid. The petitioner had filed a reply to the notice...

Penalty imposed u/s 270A(9) for underreporting and misreporting of income was challenged due to non-specification of clear charge. The Tribunal held that underreporting...

Levy of Penalty u/s 112 - Scope of the show cause notice - The CESTAT noted that, no show cause notice has been issued proposing the demand of differential duty or the...

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) - failure to comply with the notices issued by the A.O u/s 142(1) - the non-compliance on the part of the assessee is due to the reason of...

Non-discharge of service tax - extended period invoked, service tax demanded - penalties imposed u/ss 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 - appellant providing taxable...

The High Court quashed a letter dated March 13, 2024, issued by the Superintendent (A.E.) Central Goods and Service Tax, Gautam Budh Nagar, advising voluntary tax...

The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the assessee's appeal as not maintainable due to pending liquidation process. Penalty u/s 271 imposed for failure to audit accounts u/s 44AB....

Levy of penalties u/ss 122 and 129 of CGST/SGST Acts - expiry of e-way bill - mens rea in penalty imposition. Technically, violation of law by petitioner in transporting...

The High Court ruled that the Joint Assistant Commissioner (JAO) lacked jurisdiction to issue notices u/s 148 for reassessment of income escaping assessment. The notices...

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...

While issuing Draft order u/s 144C, AO issued demand notice with penalty notice - If particular income is taxable under the I.T. Act, it cannot be taxed on the basis of...

Levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) - The bonafide or other wise malafide of non compliance is also required to be kept in mind. The tax and interest are statutory levies,...

Jurisdiction powers to issue Reopening notice in metro city - It was established that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by an Income Tax Officer (ITO),...

The High Court addressed the issue of faceless assessment of income escaping assessment u/s 151A scheme. It held that notices must be issued in a faceless manner as...

Quick Updates: