Tag: income tax penalty
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 …
No penalty u/s 271E where persons are properly identified and transactions are genuine as there can be no attempt to evade tax – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3318 (2020) (06) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Industrial Enterprises vs. DCIT 73 ITD 252ADIT vs. Kumari …
Penalty notice u/s 271AAB without specifying at what percentage the penalty will be levied makes it defective and invalid and deserved to be quashed-ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3274 (2020) (02) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:DCIT v/s R. ElangovanRavi Mathur vs. DCITPr. CIT vs. …
CA made a big mistake by withdrawing appeal against the penalty order on winning quantum appeal. CIT(A) was not justified to dismiss appeal as withdrawn and not deciding it on merits – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 2506 (2018) 09 ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the …
Penalty for late filing TDS return us 272A(2)(k) quashed as accountant had changed during the year and assessee was not aware of the delay. In a latest judgment, ITAT Mumbai quashed the penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) for late filing TDS return quashed as accountant had changed during the year …
