Tag: penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) without specifying specific charge quashed. The decisions relied by Revenue rejected by the Tribunal ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3117 (2019) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Jagdamba Prasad Gupta, Delhi vs. ACITSundaram Finance Ltd., vs. CIT 403 ITR 407 (Mad.) …
Application of correct limb of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a question of fact and not a question of law. ITAT dismissed issue raised before it for the first time ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3114 (2019) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Sundaram Finance 403 ITR …
No Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for mere disallowance in quantum proceedings in the absence of any falsity in the explanation offered ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3104 (2019) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Limited (322 ITR 158) (sc)Price Waterhouse Coopers …
Revision u/s 263 upheld as AO failed to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) where assessee increased income in revised return filed u/s 148 ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3091 (2019) (07) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties:CIT v. Bhikaji Dadabhai and Co. 42 ITR 123ACIT vs. …
Concealment penalty on filing revised return after enquiry by Investigation Wing deleted as revised return was within the stipulated period prescribed u/s 139(5) ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3061 (2019) (07) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties:CIT Vs. Kulwant Singh’ (2019) 104 Taxmann.com 340 The instant …
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 …
Revision u/s 263 ordered for dropping penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) set aside as AO took a view by adopting a plausible view ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 3028 (2019) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: MAK Data Pvt. ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR …
On statutory disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia) 40A(3) there cannot be any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) especially when assessee not claimed deduction of these expenses ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 3016 (2019) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR …
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted as addition for bogus purchases was based on estimation and assesee’s conduct was not found contumacious ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 3011 (2019) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) The appellant …
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) deleted. Penalty cannot be imposed in a debatable issue where assessee had furnished complete details of the transaction. ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2960 (2019) (05) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: James vs. …
