Tag: penalty 271(1)(c)
Penalty us 271(1)(c) for black money in Swiss bank deleted on legal grounds by the ITAT as the Income Tax Department failed poorly to prosecute on legal grounds. This is in fact one of the example to what extent Income Tax Department had prepared its officer with required …
Penalty 271(1)(c) Merely if suppliers not traced at given address not indicative of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars-ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 1231 (2017) (05) ITAT The Grievance: The appellant assessee was aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A) qua confirmation of penalty …
No Penalty 271(1)(c) for disallowance 43B if quantum not disputed and following mercantile accounting it could be debited to Profit and Loss A/c – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 1230 (2017) (05) ITAT The Grievance: The appellant assessee was aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A) …
Penalty 271(1)(c) Non-deletion of few words not invalidated notice or caused any prejudice to the assessee when relevant clause was duly ticked-ITATÂ ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 1229 (2017) (05) ITAT The Grievance: The appellant assessee was aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A) qua confirmation of …
Penalty 271(1)(c) for claiming higher Housing Loan Interest deduction u/s 24(b) deleted. The AO did not detect mistake but noticed it from the reply of the assessee – ITAT Judgment ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 1124 (2017) (02) ITAT Assessment Year : 2008-09Date/Month of Pronouncement: February, 2017 Important Case …
Penalty 271(1)(c)-Explanation need not proved completely. As long as the explanation is reasonable and bonafide penalty need not be imposed-ITAT Â ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 1116 (2017) (02) ITAT Assessment Year : 2008-09 Date of Pronouncement: 30-01-2017 Brief Facts of the Case: During the assessment, an addition …
No Penalty us 271(1)(c) for claiming excess depreciation in regular course with firm belief that it is legally allowable and supported by tax audit report-ITAT Â ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 1100 (2017) (01) ITAT Assessment Year : 2007-08 Important Case Laws relied upon: CIT vs. Suhrid Geigy …
No concealment penalty-non disclosure of disallowance 40(a)(ia) in computation of income as the issue is debatable due to High Court decisions ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 1076 (2016) (12) ITAT Assessment Year: 2008-09 Date of Judgment: 01-12-2016 Brief Facts of the Case: During the scrutiny proceedings of the …
Penalty initiated for concealment levied for inaccurate particulars and concealment both is invalid. AO must frame a precise charge u/s 271(1)(c)-ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 1073 (2016) (12) ITAT Assessment Year: 2009-10 Date of Judgment: 29-11-2016 Important Case Laws cited: Zoom Communications P Ltd 327 ITR 510 …
No Penalty 271(1)(c) if primary information is furnished with ITR as held by Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd-ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 1065 (2016) (11) ITAT Assessment Year: 2008-09 Date of Judgment: 28-11-2016 Important Case Laws cited: Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd Brief …
