Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) - after taking into consideration the ...

Income Tax

March 15, 2016

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) - after taking into consideration the human conduct and preponderance of probability clearly indicate that the assessee became a willing party to nefarious black money racket for obtaining bogus gifts. Such acts cannot be taken lightly as they lead to scourge of black money in the country. - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) - after taking into consideration the ...

Income Tax

March 15, 2016

You may also like:

Taxability may be decided on the basis of probable normal human conduct, surrounding circumstances, preponderance of probabilities & legal propositions - ITAT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - the assessee has furnished bonafide and genuine explanations as to an inadvertent mistake committed by it which was an human error committed...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act – Inaccurate particulars furnished - different stands taken before the AO and appellate authority - assessee did not come out clean -...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of interest expenditure - The findings of the AO may be sufficient to make disallowance in quantum on the theory of preponderance of...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - estimation of income - bogus purchases - penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied where the addition is made on estimate basis - AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - for such lump-sum disallowance out of wages on the basis of presumption, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable - AT

Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – mere admission of appeal by the High Court is sufficient to debar the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act - AT

Penalty being 300% by invoking Section 271(1)(c) - return was revised before completion of assessment - Revenue is not justified in imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - HC

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - bogus claim of deduction under Section 35CCA - penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed - HC

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – Tribunal proceeded on hyper- technicalities and acted as though every seizure must entail initiation of proceedings u/s 271 of the Act - no penalty - HC

Quick Updates: