Penalty under section 271(1) (c) - the cost of construction in ...

Income Tax

November 4, 2015

Penalty under section 271(1) (c) - the cost of construction in the immovable property was found to be a false claim - where the claim of the assessee was found to be false, the assessee is liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty under section 271(1) (c) - the cost of construction in ...

Income Tax

November 4, 2015

You may also like:

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - the claim of the assessee was found to be false claim and explanations offered by the assessee were found by the Revenue to be false and clearly...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction - Gifts by family friends – the explanation given by the assessee is totally false -...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee has failed to explain the source with support of evidence, but his explanation was not found to be false. The lapse committed at his end...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - wrong claim of set off loss - explanation was not found false - no iota of evidence of concealment of any fact relating to particulars of income...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessment proceeding u/s 153A - Nothing on record which suggests that any document/ material/ information was found during the course of search...

Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in case of voluntary surrender of income - disallowance of claim of loss - Assessee offered the loss voluntarily to avoid litigation and...

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) - when the assessee has explained the entries with necessary evidences and said explanation is not found to be false, then merely for the reason...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - loan from friends and relatives for financing his son’s USA visa - when the evidences and explanation furnished in support of cash credits are...

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...

Quick Updates: