Penalty imposed by the Settlement Commission u/s 271(1)(c) - The ...

Income Tax

April 5, 2024

Penalty imposed by the Settlement Commission u/s 271(1)(c) - The petitioner argued against the penalty, citing lack of mens rea and the absence of evidence showing awareness or receipt of any excess consideration. The court examined the disclosures made by the petitioner, discrepancies in stamp duty valuation, and the petitioner's explanation regarding ignorance of the sale deed executed by the Power of Attorney holder. Ultimately, the High Court found that the element of concealment was not established, especially considering the lack of independent evidence showing receipt of excess consideration. Consequently, the court set aside the penalty imposed by the Settlement Commission.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty imposed by the Settlement Commission u/s 271(1)(c) - The ...

Income Tax

April 5, 2024

You may also like:

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - Default by assessee - mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for non compliance of notices issued by AO - penalty confirmed - AT

Levy of penalty u/s 54(1)(2) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 - men-rea - The Court concluded that mens rea is indeed an essential prerequisite for imposing a penalty under...

Power of settlement commission - Settlement Commission is within its powers to impose penalty on each of the Directors in addition to the imposition of penalty upon the...

Penalty levied u/s 271(I)(c) - Whether "Mens rea" is apparent in this case? - where the two regular appellate authorities have granted the relief to the Assessee by...

It was open for the Settlement Commission to impose penalty on the directors in addition to imposing penalty on the company, if there was material justifying imposition...

If there is no mens rea, no mandatory penalty u/s 11AC - SC

To impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c), willful concealment is not an essential ingredient - HC

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowances in the quantum assessment order - whether any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars proved? - Tribunal directs...

Penalty u/s 271(1(c) - With the omission of the expression ‘deliberately’, mens rea is no longer a prerequisite for imposition of penalty - penalty under Section...

Levy of penalties under various sections - The Appellate Tribunal, in a consolidated order, addressed several appeals concerning penalties imposed under various sections...

Levy of penalty on Director u/r 26 of CER - involvement of the director of the appellants in clandestine activities or not - here are not much reasoning has been...

Validity of Settlement Commission orders - The case involved petitions seeking directives for the issuance of formal orders under section 245D (4) of the Income Tax Act,...

Levy of penalty - mens rea in evasion of tax - It is well settled that by merely using the expression “mens rea”, it would not amount to concluding that there was a...

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - recording of specific finding or not? - In para 7 of the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer held that it is found to be a fit...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The considerations for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are however entirely different. It requires existence of mens rea...

Quick Updates: