Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com   

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 274

Home Case Index Income Tax Sections List
Filter:
Cases for Section: 274
Showing 1 to 15 of 265 Records
 

2016 (1) TMI 718 - ITAT KOLKATA

M/s Sajan Kumar Bansal And Sons (HUF) Versus DCIT, Circle-XXI, Kolkata

Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)( c) - Held that - On the facts of the present case that the show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court In the case of CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT we hold that the orders imposing penalty in all the ass.....


2015 (12) TMI 43 - ITAT KOLKATA

Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya Versus ACIT, Ci rcle-55, Kolkata

Penalty u/s.271(1)(C) - receipts on sale of paintings was not disclosed as income in the return of income filed - Held that - In the penalty proceedings, the Assessee pointed out that the sale of paintings was not done by him as an adventure in the nature of trade. The paintings were kept for years over because of his aesthetic sense. It gave him tremendous pleasure and pride of profession. The paintings were therefore his personal effects . This.....


2016 (1) TMI 748 - ITAT DELHI

Smt. Usha Gupta and Others Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle-12, New Delhi

Penalty u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(b) - nonappearance of the assessee on 09.10.2012, for the said date notices were issued u/s 143(2)/142(1) - Held that - The explanation of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was that her sister-in-law Mrs. Anju Gupta was suffering from severe disease and had to be hospitalized on 06.10.2012. Thereafter on the date of hearing i.e. 09.10.2012, Sh. Satya Prakash Gupta head of the family and father-in-law of t.....


2015 (12) TMI 1025 - ITAT PUNE

Mrs. Sarita Kaur Manjeet Singh Chopra Versus The Income Tax Officer, (Central) I, Pune

Penalty levied under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) - Held that - We hold that the income offered by the assessee pertaining to the cash seized from the assessee and the declaration of the assessee that the said cash relates to the unaccounted cash received vide the sale transaction entered into by the assessee, which in turn, was declared by the assessee in the return of income filed pursuant to issue of notice under section 153A of the Act, is th.....


2015 (11) TMI 1281 - ITAT BANGALORE

Shri Raghunath H. Baddi Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (3) , Hubballi.

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - defective notice - Held that - on the facts of the present case that the show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT we hold that the orders imposing penalty in all .....


2015 (10) TMI 2164 - ITAT BANGALORE

Shri Y.C. Sandeep Reddy Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4 (1) , Bangalore

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - validity - Held that - In view of the fact that notice u/s. 274 of the Act in the present case does not make any reference as to whether the assessee has concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, the entire penalty proceedings are held to be invalid. Penalty imposed is accordingly cancelled. - Decided in favour of assessee.


2015 (10) TMI 2006 - ITAT BANGALORE

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, LTU, Bangalore Versus M/s. State Bank of Mysore

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - irregular notice - Held that - The Assessing Officer has not specified the relevant portion of the clause (c) of the notice under Section 274 rws 271 of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2008-09. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ) we .....


2015 (9) TMI 1011 - ITAT PUNE

Sanjog Tarachand Lodha Versus Income Tax Officer, Central 1, Nashik

Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - additional income admitted during search and returned u/s. 153A proceedings - Held that - Furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealing of income are two different expressions having different connotations. For initiating penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer has to be very specific for the reasons of levying penalty, Whether it is for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or conceali.....


2015 (9) TMI 547 - ITAT BANGALORE

Shri B.L. Dasraj Urs, M/s. Sri Nimishamba Stationery Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (2) , Mysore.

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - vlidity of notice u/s. 274 - unaccounted sales - entire sale value was treated as income of the Assessee and brought to tax rejecting assessee contention that only the gross profit on these unaccounted sales can be added as income of the Assessee and not the entire sales - Held that - On the facts of the present case that the show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which .....


2015 (8) TMI 919 - ITAT BANGALORE

Shri E. Krishnappa Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 6 (1) , Bangalore.

Penalty under section 271 1 c - Held that - The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the Notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is not discernable from the notice issued and consequently the order of penalty passed under section 271 1 c of the Act on an invalid notice does not have any legs to stand and the penalty levied under section 271 1 c of t.....


2015 (10) TMI 183 - ITAT DELHI

ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi Versus M/s Essel Shyam Communication Ltd.

Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)( c) r/w section 274 - disallowing excess and incorrect deduction u/s 80IA on account of profit from trading of VSAT equipment , service charges for computer software updating of NMS, FDRs pledged with Bank for availing non fund based working capital limits treating it as income from other sources and profit earned from segment charges - CIT(A) deleted penalty levy - Held that - The issue of penalty is consequential to t.....


2015 (7) TMI 601 - ITAT BANGALORE

Shri H. Lakshminarayana Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (3) , Bangalore

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - interest so earned by the assessee had not been offered to tax by the assessee in the returns of income filed for A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2008-09. Similarly, the assessee also did not declare interest received on SB account for A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2008-09 - Held that - The show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. In our view, the aforesaid .....


2015 (6) TMI 992 - ITAT BANGALORE

M/s. Maganur Builders Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-2,

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - whether the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 does not specify the exact reason for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)? - Held that - The Assessing Officer is empowered under the Act to initiate penalty proceedings once he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings that there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of total income under clause (c). Concealment, furnishing inaccurate particu.....


2015 (6) TMI 714 - ITAT MUMBAI

M/s. Infinity Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus The DCIT, Cen. Cir. 12, Mumbai

Penalty Order u/s. 271(1)(b) r.w.s. 274 - Held that - In the present case assessee has never been put to the notice to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed under section 271(1)(b) as there was only an indication in the notice issued under section 142(1) that the failure of the assessee to attend the proceedings on 12/2/2013 would entail the assessee for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. But that cannot be said to be f.....


2015 (6) TMI 715 - ITAT MUMBAI

Mr. Lakhamshi J. Gala Versus The DCIT, Cen. Cir. 12, Mumbai

Penalty Order u/s. 271(1)(b) r.w.s. 274 - Held that - In the present case assessee has never been put to the notice to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed under section 271(1)(b) as there was only an indication in the notice issued under section 142(1) that the failure of the assessee to attend the proceedings on 12/2/2013 would entail the assessee for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. But that cannot be said to be f.....


 
   
 
 
1........
 

what is new what is new

Latest

Featured

Experts

Subscription

More Options

Communication




|| About us || Contact us || Feed Back || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map || ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Website