Tag: penalty 271(1)(c)
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 …
No Concealment if return revised due to search of other person when assessee voluntarily filed revised ITR and no proceedings were initiated u/s 153 against him-ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: 1052 (2016) (11) ITAT Important Case considered: Ravi Sud vs. ACIT (2015) 39 ITR (T) 356 CIT vs. …
