Tag: penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
No concealment when all information available for determining income given voluntarily by assessee either in return or at the time of assessment ABACUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3380 (2020) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:CIT vs. Samson Perinchery 392 ITR 4 (Bom). Ventura Textiles Ltd., vs. …
Whether an expenditure is capital or revenue squarely fall within the ambit of a debatable issue. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted ABACUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3379 (2020) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:CIT vs. Vegan International Ltd. 2 Taxmann.com 140 In the instant case, the …
Law does not debar assessee from making a claim which he believes is plausible and knowing that it will be examined by AO ABACUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3371 (2020) (08) HC Important case law relied upon by the parties:Alpati Venkataramiah v/s. CIT – 57 ITR 185 (SC)Union of …
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) upheld despite notice without striking off the not applicable charge as in penalty order AO specified the applicable limb ABACUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3359 (2020) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Shweta Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO,B. D. Mundra & Sons, …
Concealment Penalty cannot be levied on rejection of a bonafide claim. Even assessee with great expertise could make silly mistake ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3337 (2020) (07) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 SCCIT vs. Somany …
Penalty proceedings initiated on one limb and penalty imposed on two limbs invalid ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3336 (2020) (07) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Shri Narendra P. Musale vs. ITOCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery 392 ITR 4 In the instant case, …
No Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) merely due to quantum addition without making fresh verification during penalty proceedings ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3299 (2020) (04) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:National Textiles Vs. CIT 249 ITR 125. The issue involved in this case was related to penalty …
No Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on cancellation of automatic deduction u/s 24(a) on wrong classification of income under house property than other sources ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3298 (2020) (04) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158CIT vs. Sambhav …
Reversal of earlier order by ITAT based on judgment of non jurisdictional High Court. Question kept open though SLP dismissed by Supreme Court ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3280 (2020) (03) SC Important case law relied upon by the parties:Honda Seil Ltd (295 ITR 466)CIT v. Manjunatha Cottonand Ginning …
Penalty notice u/s 271AAB without specifying at what percentage the penalty will be levied makes it defective and invalid and deserved to be quashed-ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3274 (2020) (02) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:DCIT v/s R. ElangovanRavi Mathur vs. DCITPr. CIT vs. …
