Tag: income tax penalty
Once income suffered TDS it cannot be said to be undisclosed income – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3650 (2023) (01) ITAT Important Case Laws relied upon:Samson Maritime Ltd. vs CITMak Data 258 ITR 593 (SC)Dharmendra Textiles Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244CIT vs Vidyagauri Natwar Lal, 238 ITR …
If one proceeding is saved, other has to be quashed – interesting judgment of ITAT on reassessment and penalty proceedings. ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3649 (2023) (01) ITAT This interesting judgment of the ITAT deals with one quantum-appeal filed by assessee against the order passed by Commissioner of …
Liability of company paid by Director in cash is cash loan u/s 269SS liable to Penalty u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ABCAUS Case Law Citation ABCAUS 3640 (2023) (01) ITAT Important Case Laws relied upon:CIT v. Dimple Yadav, reported in (2015) 280 CTR (All) 309CIT …
Date of initiation of penalty proceedings in assessment order is the relevant date u/s 275(1)(c) for limitation purpose. ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3618 (2022) (11) HC Important Case Laws relied upon by parties Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd.Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. JKD …
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 …
