Tag: penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
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. …
Non striking of applicable limb of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in notice. ITAT permits restoration of appeal if issue is decided by Supreme Court in favour of Revenue ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3269 (2020) (02) ITAT In a recent judgment, Tribunal had dealt with a challenge to the validity …
Concealment penalty deleted as assessee was not habitual defaulter, made surrender only to buy peace and did not contest the issue further in quantum proceedings ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3254 (2020) (02) ITAT In the instant case, the appeal was filed by the appellant assessee against the order …
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for inadvertent error of accountant deleted as assessee revised belated return and his conduct was not contumacious ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3252 (2020) (02) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:CIT vs Fortune Hotels and Estates (P.) Ltd., 52 taxmann.com 330 (Bombay)Price Waterhouse …
Genuine expenses wrongly claimed as deduction not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing the inaccurate particular of income ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3217 (2019) (01) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:CIT V/s Zoom Communications Limited 327ITR 510CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd reported in 322 …
Claim of exemption u/s 10 for agricultural land not liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c). ITAT directed Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3214 (2019) (01) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Shri Prakash Raj Bhansali vs ITO In the instant case, an …
Concealment penalty deleted for excess salary appearing in Form 26AS on revision by employer. ITAT accepted assessee’s explanation as bonafide & genuine ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3160 (2019) (09) ITAT Concealment penalty for excess salary appearing in Form 26AS In the instant case, the appeal was filed by …
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on disallowance of notional interest on debit balances in capital account of some of the partners deleted as in totality, partners capital had net credit balance. ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3158 (2019) (09) ITAT In the instant case, the appeal was filed by the assessee …
