Tag: penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
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 …
No penalty can be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) on preponderance of probabilities and Revenue has to prove that claim of expenses was not genuine or was inflated to reduce its tax liability ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3157 (2019) (09) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Hindustan Steel …
Penalty 271(1)(c) deleted as employee was misguided by employer cooperative bank that interest income was exempt ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3155 (2019) (09) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Badshah Parshad Vs. CIT, 127 ITA 601 (Patna)Rave Entertainment P.Ltd. Vs. CIT, 376 ITR 544 (All)Garden Silk …
Penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) without specifying specific charge quashed. The decisions relied by Revenue rejected by the Tribunal ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3117 (2019) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Jagdamba Prasad Gupta, Delhi vs. ACITSundaram Finance Ltd., vs. CIT 403 ITR 407 (Mad.) …
Application of correct limb of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is a question of fact and not a question of law. ITAT dismissed issue raised before it for the first time ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3114 (2019) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:Sundaram Finance 403 ITR …
No Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for mere disallowance in quantum proceedings in the absence of any falsity in the explanation offered ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3104 (2019) (08) ITAT Important case law relied upon by the parties:CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Limited (322 ITR 158) (sc)Price Waterhouse Coopers …