ITAT set aside penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after finding no deliberate ...

Tribunal Quashes Tax Penalty, Finds No Intentional Concealment in Expense Disallowance Dispute

April 12, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax AT

ITAT set aside penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after finding no deliberate concealment. The Tribunal noted two key disallowances: first, estimated expense addition was already directed for deletion by CIT(A), and second, TDS disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was previously deleted in quantum proceedings. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Reliance Petroproducts, the Tribunal held that mere expense disallowance does not automatically warrant penalty. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalty, with the assessee's appeal grounds being allowed, effectively nullifying the original penalty order.

View Source

← Previous Next →

ITAT set aside penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after finding no deliberate ...

Tribunal Quashes Tax Penalty, Finds No Intentional Concealment in Expense Disallowance Dispute

April 12, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

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

Mere disallowance of expenses u/s 40A(3) would not invite penalty for concealing or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Assessee disclosed all particulars...

ITAT adjudicated a tax penalty case involving multiple PAN registrations. The assessee demonstrated inadvertent income reporting across different PAN statuses (from...

ITAT ruled against disallowance of transportation expenses, finding the Assessing Officer failed to establish statutory grounds u/s 37 for rejection. The tribunal...

Disallowance made u/s 43B regarding expenses claimed by the assessee. There was confusion about which limb penalty is to be levied. The disallowance confirmed by the...

Levy of penalties under various sections - The Appellate Tribunal, in a consolidated order, addressed several appeals concerning penalties imposed under various sections...

The Appellate Tribunal considered the levy of penalty u/s 270A. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed the penalty u/s 270A(9)(a) for misrepresentation of facts and...

The Tribunal held that based on the financial parameters and risk profile, the assessee qualifies as a developer rather than merely a contractor u/s 80IA of the Income...

ITAT adjudicated a case involving penalty under Section 43 of the Black Money Act for non-reporting of foreign assets in Schedule FA. Despite technical non-disclosure,...

The ITAT Mumbai considered a case involving a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal found the...

Offence u/s 276(C)(2) and 277 - Allegation of willful tax evasion and non-payment of admitted tax - compounding application. The petitioner submitted income tax return...

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 levied u/s 274 read with Section 270A - assessee computed tax on disallowed depreciation amount at maximum marginal rate and levied 200% penalty on payable tax -...

Penalty u/s 271AAB(1A)(b) was levied for suo moto disallowance of personal expenses u/s 37 by the assessee in the return filed in response to a notice u/s 153A. The...

Additions u/s 69C - purview and scope of section 69C is totally different from the disallowance of expenses found to be not genuine - The basic premise with the CIT...

Quick Updates: