HC held that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were ...

High Court Finds Tax Penalty Unwarranted: Genuine Mistake, Procedural Defects Invalidate Section 271(1)(c) Proceedings

April 23, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax HC

HC held that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were unwarranted. The AO had previously accepted the full partition of the HUF during assessment under Section 143(3), rendering subsequent challenges inappropriate. The assessee's treatment of assets as a transfer was deemed a genuine mistake, not a deliberate attempt to evade tax. The notice initiating penalty proceedings differed from the eventual penalty order, constituting a procedural defect. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty order was upheld, effectively ruling in favor of the assessee and negating the imposed penalty.

View Source

← Previous Next →

HC held that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were ...

High Court Finds Tax Penalty Unwarranted: Genuine Mistake, Procedural Defects Invalidate Section 271(1)(c) Proceedings

April 23, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax HC

You may also like:

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition u/s 68 - Penalty has been levied in a mechanical manner without application of mind. In our view, this is a serious mistake in the...

HC set aside GST assessment order due to absence of assessing officer's signature, holding it as a fatal procedural defect. The court determined that signature...

The High Court quashed the orders of the Appellate and Adjudicating Authorities imposing penalty on the petitioner for transporting goods after the expiry of the e-way...

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...

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 -...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal and directed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to be deleted. The Assessing Officer...

Validity of an order which was not signed - Avoidable mistake - Section 160 of CGST Act 2017 is not attracted. An unsigned order cannot be covered under “any mistake,...

NCLAT determined the condonation of 154-day delay in refiling an appeal, evaluating the sufficiency of cause. Despite geographical dispersion of appellants across...

Section 90 of the Income Tax Act allows relief from double taxation by granting foreign tax credits (FTCs) on foreign income taxed in both India and the other country....

Penalty u/s 271AAB - Defects in the notice issued u/s 274 - CIT(A) reduced the penalty to 10% applying provisions of Section 271AAB(a) of the Act as against penalty...

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

HC condoned a 35-day delay in filing GST appeal, emphasizing that procedural delays should not override substantive justice. The petitioner had demonstrated compliance...

Tax planning versus Tax evasion - The Assessing Officer cannot disregard a transaction just because it results in a tax advantage to the assessee. Just as much as we...

Del HC held assessment order issued in name of Cairn India Limited after its amalgamation with Vedanta Limited was fundamentally void and not rectifiable under s.154 or...

ITAT held that penalty u/s 270A(9)(a) for under-reporting of income is deleted. The appellant, a salaried employee, demonstrated a bona fide mistake by relying on tax...

Quick Updates: