Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - merely because the assessee agreed for ...

Tax Penalty Under Sec 271(1)(c) Not Justified by Mere Agreement to Addition Without Evidence of Income Concealment.

July 24, 2013

Case Laws Income Tax HC

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - merely because the assessee agreed for addition and accordingly assessment order was passed on the basis of this addition and when the assessee has paid the tax and the interest thereon in the absence of any material on record to show the concealment of income - it cannot be inferred that the said addition is on account of concealment - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - merely because the assessee agreed for ...

Tax Penalty Under Sec 271(1)(c) Not Justified by Mere Agreement to Addition Without Evidence of Income Concealment.

July 24, 2013

Case Laws Income Tax HC

You may also like:

This case deals with the levy of penalties u/ss 271AAA and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in relation to various additions made to the assessee's income based on seized...

Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for two types of additions: (1) the addition made u/s 50C on the difference between stamp duty value and sale...

MAT is paid, additions were made to regular income, penalty not levied – 115JB, 271(1)(c)

The ITAT held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not imposable on the assessee. The assessee had voluntarily paid tax on income from sale of shares three years prior to...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - when the assessee company had been assessed to tax under the deeming provisions of Sec. 115JB of the Act, therefore, on the basis of our...

The Assessing Officer (AO) consciously deleted irrelevant portions from the show cause notice, mentioning only the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income....

Monetary limit for filing of appeal by revenue in case of penalty - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on bogus purchases - Quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are...

The assessee had conceded the compensation income to be included as income from other sources. However, upon judicial examination, the compensation was found to be...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed for an ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of expenses made by the Assessing Officer....

Penalty levied u/ss 271(1)(c) and 271AAA for unexplained investment and addition made by adopting net profit as per the books of accounts at 12.85% on the suppressed...

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of bogus purchases by applying the profit rate - Once there is no reason to disbelieve the sales made by the assessee and...

The Appellate Tribunal held that despite the addition u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act being justified, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied due to ambiguity...

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Failure of the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit in the bank account - burden of proof - The ITAT acknowledged the...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - As the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act leviable without taking the approval from the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax,...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non recording of satisfaction - When satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act is recorded by the AO in...

Quick Updates: