Tag: penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
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 …
No Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on filing revised return when no such questionnaire was issued with notice u/s 143(2) ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3463 (2021) (03) ITAT Important case law relied referred:CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald MeadowsPr. CIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd.ITO vs. Sitashri Trading & Finance …
Some tax evasion sought by assessee is a necessary condition for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). What has to be shown is whether, and if so, how, assessee can be said to have sought to evade tax. ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3433 (2021) (01) ITAT Important case law …
Non striking of applicable limb of penalty clause u/s 271(1)(c) in notice-Supreme Court dismisses SLP of the Income Tax Department ABCAUS Case Law CitationABCAUS 3426 (2020) (11) Important case law relied upon by the parties:Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Shri Samson PerincheryPrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax v/s New …
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, …
