Tag: penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted as addition for bogus purchases was based on estimation and assesee’s conduct was not found contumacious ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 3011 (2019) (06) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties:Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted …
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) deleted. Penalty cannot be imposed in a debatable issue where assessee had furnished complete details of the transaction. ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2960 (2019) (05) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: James vs. …
Delay condoned as assessee filed a single appeal against two penalty orders and later realized that a single appeal against two penalty orders passed under different sections not permissible ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2954 (2019) (05) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties Manoj Ahuja …
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on proportionate disallowance of interest expenses towards interest free advances given by the assessee deleted ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2941 (2019) (05) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties CIT vs. Dalmia Dyechem Industries Ltd. The assessee had filed an appeal against …
No concealment Penalty if assessee’s explanation not found false, but not accepted on account of substantiation with solid evidences ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2920 (2019) (05) ITAT The assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) in confirming penalty imposed by the …
No Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without addition-Quantification of penalty depended upon addition made to the income of the assessee – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 2910 (2019) (05) ITAT The assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty imposed by …
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for inadvertently not showing salary from second employer deleted as assessee suo moto recalculated and paid the tax along with interest ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2908 (2019) (05) ITAT The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income …
No concealment penalty for bonafide error of chartered accountant in claiming wrong deduction u/s 80IC by choosing incorrect initial assessment year ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2864 (2019) (04) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties Price Water Coopers reported in 348 ITR 306 Zoom Communication …
Mere agreeing to increased net profit rate, by itself was no ground to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) when it was already higher compared to preceding assessment years – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2840 (2019) (03) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties Harigopal Singh …
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted for claiming depreciation on assets for which invoices were raised by the vendor in the name of the other firm  – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2796 (2019) (02) ITAT The appeal in the instant case was filed by assessee against the appellate …
