Tag: income tax penalty

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) quashed as notice u/s 142(1) issued but no finding was as to if it was served on assessee. ABCAUS Case Law Citation ABCAUS 3613 (2023) (10) ITAT In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming penalty u/s …

No concealment penalty for claiming capital expenditure as revenue when there is no conscious and deliberate attempt by assessee to evade tax. In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) …

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted as quantum addition was reduced significantly from 100% to 20% in respect of bogus purchases. In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) imposed by the …

Non-specific penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) issued by assessing officer violates mandatory requirement of law and doctrine of prejudice cannot be invoked ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3511 (2021) (06) ITAT Important case law relied referred:Mohd. Farhan A. ShaikhRajesh Kumar v. CIT State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei Dilip …

Penalty u/s 271E deleted when loan was paid in cash to avoid default effecting CIBIL score as signed cheque books were not available with staff ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3439 (2021) (01) ITAT Important case law relied referred:Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa reported in (1972) 083 …

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) can not be imposed when assessment order passed u/s 143(3) not best judgment assessment u/s 144 ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3417 (2020) (10) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust vs.  ADIT 115 TTJ 419 (Del.) In …

When quantum additions deleted, penalty u/s 271(1)(b) not leviable for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1). At best it could be technical & venial default on part of assessee ABACUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3383 (2020) (09) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:CIT vs. Kabul …

Market value of stock instead of cost no basis to determine undisclosed income. Penalty u/s 271AAB not mandatory ABACUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3363 (2020) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:M/s Sumangal Gems vs. DCIT In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order …

Penalty 271(1)(b) deleted as assessee had furnished medical certificate of treatment for depression and AO did not bring anything against the evidences of ill-health. ABACUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3354 (2020) (08) ITAT In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming …

Concealment Penalty cannot be levied on rejection of a bonafide claim. Even assessee with great expertise could make silly mistake ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3337 (2020) (07) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 SCCIT vs. Somany …