Tag: penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
CIT is empowered to invoke revisionry powers u/s 263 to direct AO to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 2687 (2018) (12) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon:CIT Vs. Ashok ConstructionsCIT Vs. Surendra Prasad AgarwalV. Ramanamurthy RajuStar Diamond Tools Vs. ITOCIT Vs. Paramanand …
Penalty U/s 271(1)(c)-Unspecified charge in notice can be made good with a clear-cut finding in penalty order – ITAT explains Law on non-striking off clauses in Notice u/s 274 ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 2678 (2018) (12) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon:CIT vs. SSA’S Emerald Meadows (2016) 242 …
Mere making a claim for set off of losses not furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as it was personal opinion with regard to income-tax – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2646 (2018) (11) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon: CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 …
Not disclosing accrued FDR interest payable on maturity was not Concealment. Penalty deleted as interest was payable on termination or on maturity ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2645 (2018) (11) ITAT The instant appeal of the assessee was directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) …
Assessee’s explanation may not be sufficient for deleting addition on merit, however, in penalty proceedings it deserves to be accepted – ITAT deletes concealment penalty imposed for addition made due to unserved summons on debtors ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2591 (2018) (10) ITAT The instant appeal was …
No concealment penalty based on circumstantial evidence of bogus purchases where the income was estimated on the basis of circumstances brought on record ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2575 (2018) (10) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: CIT Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Export Ltd. Sanjay Oilcake …
Concealment penalty upheld on profit estimated on suppressed turnover conceded by assessee and quantified on the basis of Form 26AS Statement ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2560 (2018) (10) ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: D.K.B. & Co. vs. DCIT 198 Taxman 339 Navjivan Oilk …
CA made a big mistake by withdrawing appeal against the penalty order on winning quantum appeal. CIT(A) was not justified to dismiss appeal as withdrawn and not deciding it on merits – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 2506 (2018) 09 ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the …
Concealment Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for claiming capital loss as business loss. No Penalty when the assessee disclosed all the material in the computation of his income.- High Court ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2487 (2018) 08 HC Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties: CIT Vs. Siddharth …
CIT revisional order setting aside dropping of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO was quashed by ITAT as AO took one of the possible views as per the judgment of Apex Court ABCAUS Case Law Citation ABCAUS 2361 (2018) 06 ITAT In the all the cases covered …