Tag: penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
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. …
Delay condoned as assessee filed a single appeal against two penalty orders and later realized that a single appeal against two penalty orders passed under different sections not permissible ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2954 (2019) (05) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties Manoj Ahuja …
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on proportionate disallowance of interest expenses towards interest free advances given by the assessee deleted ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2941 (2019) (05) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties CIT vs. Dalmia Dyechem Industries Ltd. The assessee had filed an appeal against …
No concealment Penalty if assessee’s explanation not found false, but not accepted on account of substantiation with solid evidences ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2920 (2019) (05) ITAT The assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) in confirming penalty imposed by the …
No Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without addition-Quantification of penalty depended upon addition made to the income of the assessee – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 2910 (2019) (05) ITAT The assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty imposed by …
