Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - bona fide or mala fide with ...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Not Applicable Without Intent to Evade Taxes; Taxpayer's Claim Rejected for Airport Expenditure.

March 23, 2015

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - bona fide or mala fide with an intention to evade taxes - not exigible to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act where the claim of the assessee vis-a-vis expenditure incurred on establishment of an international airport had been rejected - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - bona fide or mala fide with ...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Not Applicable Without Intent to Evade Taxes; Taxpayer's Claim Rejected for Airport Expenditure.

March 23, 2015

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

Levy of penalties u/ss 122 and 129 of CGST/SGST Acts - expiry of e-way bill - mens rea in penalty imposition. Technically, violation of law by petitioner in transporting...

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee company failed to provide bonafide explanation for inflated expenses claimed in revised return, contrary to audited...

The ITAT ruled that penalties under sections 271(1)(c) and 270A against the taxpayer were improper and directed their deletion. The tribunal held that merely making an...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) - Unexplained Expenditure on Stamp Duty and Registration Charges made out of Undisclosed Income - There was no dishonest intent of the assessee...

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...

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) claimed in the original return and later in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act,...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed for excess deduction claimed u/s 10B. The assessee furnished all relevant facts for computing total income, and provided detailed...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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

Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - penalty cannot be levied where a bonafide claim of the assessee was rejected by the tax department. - AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - there is no ‘tax sought to be evaded’, in terms of Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c), on which penalty could be levied - even as the asessee has...

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....

Quick Updates: