Penalty u/s 271 - claim of depreciation - business was closed - ...

Income Tax

July 16, 2013

Penalty u/s 271 - claim of depreciation - business was closed - since the assessee has failed to make a satisfactory explanation for makings such patently false claim, the CIT(A) was not at all justified in deleting the penalty. - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271 - claim of depreciation - business was closed - ...

Income Tax

July 16, 2013

You may also like:

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - disallowance of depreciation - he explanation given by the assessee for the claim of depreciation is neither bona fide nor...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Merely because assessee claimed depreciation at 25% treating items to be plant, which claim was not acceptable to revenue, would not by itself...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- Wrongful claim of depreciation - The attempts made by the assessee are indicative of frivolous nature of claim - penalty confirmed - AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of excessive depreciation - cost of acquisition of wind mill - whether or not assessee is entitled to the benefit under proviso to...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Mere making of a...

Revision u/s 263 - claim of depreciation - no business activity - the assessee is not carrying on any business activity. Indeed the manufacturing activity of the...

Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) - period of limitation - treatment of lease rent income - in the revised return, assessee claimed the same as income from house property to claim...

Imposition of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The explanation given by the assessee for the depreciation claim, is neither bona-fide, nor substantiated - penalty confirmed - HC

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on addition made u/s 68 - the assessee has given sufficient explanation though not found satisfactory by AO - No merit in levying penalty.

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Excess depreciation claim - it is merely a case of difference arising out of the reworking of the carry forward depreciation by the AO by...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted – the act of the assessee was bonafide even though the assessee may have failed to substantiate its claim that the amount was capital receipt - HC

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Discrepancy or deficiency in the closing stock of the assessee - the mere addition on account of valuation of closing stock by adopting a...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee had sold a plot of land in respect of which deduction u/s 54B claimed - withdrawal of deduction u/s 54B - merely because the assessee...

Penalty u/s 271(1) - addition of wrong claim u/s 80IB made by assessee in the return & surrendered during scrutiny proceedings - such claim is solely based on the report...

Claim of higher depreciation of ‘Bizerba weighing scales’ - A photocopy (xerox) machine can also be attached to a computer, however, that does not entitle it for...

Quick Updates: