Tag: penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
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 Â (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 CIT(A) was not justified to dismiss appeal as withdrawn and not deciding it on merits – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation:ABCAUS 2506 (2018) 09 ITAT Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the …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 …
Deferral of depreciation allowance not concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Noted Lawyer Harish Salve gets relief from ITAT Â ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2081 (2017) (09) ITAT The Challenge/Grievance: This appeal was filed by assessee against the …
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) invalid for assessment made in search cases u/s 158BC of the Income Tax Act. Penalty proceedings initiated and completed under wrong sections invalid-ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 2040 (2017) (08) ITAT Assessment Year : Â Block Period 1987-88 to 1997-98. Brief Facts of the Case: …
Non-disclosure of bank account due to over-sight-Concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c) upheld as no credible explanation given for omission & source of deposits – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 1268 (2017) (05) ITAT Assessment Year: 2009-10 Date/Month of Judgment/Order: May, 2017 Brief facts of the case: The assessee …
No concealment penalty on return revision made before issue of notice u/s 148 though after initiation of investigation in tax evasion petition filed against the assessee – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 1215 (2017) (04) ITAT The Grievance: The appellant assessee company was aggrieved by the order …
Concealment means positive act on part of the assessee and the onus to prove is on Revenue. Penalty can not be levied on estimate or guess work – ITAT ABCAUS Case Law Citation: ABCAUS 1214 (2017) (04) ITAT The Grievance: The appellant assessee company was aggrieved by the …
