Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - wrong claim of set off of loss ...

Income Tax

August 18, 2016

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - wrong claim of set off of loss of father - there is no revenue loss to the Department for the reason that both the assessee as well as her father are under same tax bracket/slab of tax - No penalty - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - wrong claim of set off of loss ...

Income Tax

August 18, 2016

You may also like:

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(C) - deemed income being loss claimed and disallowed - The AO has also not specified the charge on which penalty is being levied - No penalty - AT

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) - furnished wrong particulars of its income in terms of profits u/s 115JB - Computation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) - levy of penalty confirmed - AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - set off of business loss against income from other sources disallowed - Claim of the assessee is in consideration of the financial statements and...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – the section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue, by reason of concealment of particulars of income - penalty confirmed - AT

Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) - Defective notice - non specification of charge - ITAT rightly set-aside the order of the penalty levied on the Assessee.

Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act cannot be levied in a case where the assessed income is a loss – Held yes - HC

Penalty for concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act - Claim of capital loss as bad debt - bonafide belief - no penalty - HC

Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) - claim of exemption u/s 10(38) whereas sale of shares was not through stock exchange - company adopted LIFO method where as AO adopted FIFO...

Disallowance of setting off of the carried forward loss - return filed beyond the due date specified under subsection (1) of section 139 - It was argued that the delay...

Quick Updates: