Tag: penalty notice u/s 274
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) confirmed despite non specifying charge in the notice as assessee not raised it before CIT(A) and changed stand before ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 3050 (2019) (07) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. Sundaram Finance …
Penalty U/s 271(1)(c)-Unspecified charge in notice can be made good with a clear-cut finding in penalty order – ITAT explains Law on non-striking off clauses in Notice u/s 274 ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 2678 (2018) (12) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon:CIT vs. SSA’S Emerald Meadows (2016) 242 …
Not striking off penalty notice SC dismisses assessee’s SLP against High Court order holding that it had caused no prejudice to the assessee ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2597 (2018) (10) SC Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jindal Equipments Leasing and Consultancy Services …
Demand notice quashed as due to absence of AO it did not precede any hearing as contemplated under Section 274 of the Act ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2483 (2018) 08 HC The instant petition was filed by assessee against the impugned demand notice issued by the Assessing …
Non issuance of statutory notice u/s 274(1) vitiated levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b). Mere proposal to initiate penalty proceedings not amount to recording the satisfaction-ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2446 (2018) 08 ITAT The instant judgment was delivered in a bunch of appeals filed by several assessee …
Penalty notice without specific charges when assessee had no confusion as to if it was for concealment or inaccurate particulars as appeared from his reply. Penalty Upheld by ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 1207 (2017) (04) ITAT The Grievance: The assessee was aggrieved by order passed by the …
Non striking off clause in penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) do not invalidate it. ITAT deviates from the Judgment of Karnataka High Court follows jurisdictional High Court In a recent judgment, ITAT Mumbai has upheld the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) dismissing the contention of the assessee regarding not striking off …
