No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed on the assessee for ...

ITAT Rules No Penalty for Assessee u/s 271(1)(c) Due to Bona Fide Depreciation Claim Error.

January 11, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax AT

No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed on the assessee for disallowance of depreciation. The ITAT held that the assessee did not deliberately claim depreciation with an intention to make an inaccurate claim, as evidenced by the voluntary withdrawal of the ground before the CIT(A) and non-claiming of depreciation in subsequent years. The ITAT relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., which held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) would be imposed for a bona fide, inadvertent, or human error. The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee.

View Source

← Previous Next →

No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed on the assessee for ...

ITAT Rules No Penalty for Assessee u/s 271(1)(c) Due to Bona Fide Depreciation Claim Error.

January 11, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

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) - 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...

The ITAT held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not imposable on the assessee. The assessee had voluntarily paid tax on income from sale of shares three years prior to...

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed despite the assessee withdrawing the exemption claim u/s 10(38) for Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of penny stocks and offering...

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...

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The Revenue argued that the assessee's actions constituted furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing income. However, the High...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – In the garb of the bona fide claim an assessee cannot escape levy of penalty - Onus was not on the AO to prove the negative - AT

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...

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....

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - bona fide or mala fide with an intention to evade taxes - not exigible to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act where the...

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...

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

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - deduction of LTCG u/s 54F - The assessee acted in bona fide belief and made the claim is not acceptable due to any reason and was...

Quick Updates: