Tag: penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

Income tax penalty can not be imposed on the HUF which was no longer in existence and dissolved upon partition In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held that income tax penalty can not be imposed on the HUF which was no longer in existence. Even …

There is no overlap between two phrases “concealment of particulars of his income” and “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” – High Court upheld ITAT in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for not specifying limb of applicable charge.  In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that where …

There is no willful default of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income if disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) In a recent judgment, ITAT Cuttack has held that where a disallowance is made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the act for default for non-deduction of TDS, it cannot …

Claim of expenditure involved is not a case of concealment of income. ITAT deleted penalty u/s 271(1)(c) In a recent judgment, the ITAT Delhi has held that claim of expenditure involved is not a case of concealment of income. ITAT deleted penalty u/s 271(1)(c) ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS …

Notice u/s 148A(b) giving less than seven days time to submit response quashed In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has set aside show cause notice u/s 148A(b) giving less than seven days’ time to submit response ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 4085 (2024) (06) HC …

Merely because assessee did not filed appeal against addition it cannot be a ground for imposing penalty – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3766 (2023) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws relied upon:Rajiv Kumar Garg vs. ITOCIT vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd.Harigopal Singh vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 85 …

Once income suffered TDS it cannot be said to be undisclosed income – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3650 (2023) (01) ITAT Important Case Laws relied upon:Samson Maritime Ltd. vs CITMak Data 258 ITR 593 (SC)Dharmendra Textiles Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244CIT vs Vidyagauri Natwar Lal, 238 ITR …

No concealment penalty for claiming capital expenditure as revenue when there is no conscious and deliberate attempt by assessee to evade tax. In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) …

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted as quantum addition was reduced significantly from 100% to 20% in respect of bogus purchases. In the instant case, the assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) imposed by the …

Non-specific penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) issued by assessing officer violates mandatory requirement of law and doctrine of prejudice cannot be invoked ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3511 (2021) (06) ITAT Important case law relied referred:Mohd. Farhan A. ShaikhRajesh Kumar v. CIT State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei Dilip …