Penalty u/ 271(1)(c) - unexplained investment - assessee should ...

Court Examines Section 271(1)(c) Penalty: Unexplained Investment Not Automatically Guilty of Concealment or Inaccuracy.

February 27, 2017

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Penalty u/ 271(1)(c) - unexplained investment - assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/ 271(1)(c) - unexplained investment - assessee should ...

Court Examines Section 271(1)(c) Penalty: Unexplained Investment Not Automatically Guilty of Concealment or Inaccuracy.

February 27, 2017

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

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...

Unexplained investment u/s 69 - The aspect that this income was not declared in the original return of income cannot be a ground to automatically conclude that it is...

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...

Charitable institution invested funds in shares of joint venture companies, violating Section 13(1)(d). Exemption u/s 11 denied for income from such investment. However,...

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The Revenue argued that the assessee's actions constituted furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing income. However, the High...

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...

The High Court considered the legality of a penalty imposed u/s 31(3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, due to the want of Form 28B. The issue was whether the defendants...

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...

The Appellate Tribunal found the Appellant Company guilty of contravening u/s 9(1)(a) of FERA 1973 by making payments to a person outside India without RBI permission....

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...

Contravention of Sections 8(1) and 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - receiving foreign exchange payments in 1996-97 through fake export documents...

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - There is no concrete positive evidence against the assessee exhibiting unexplained investment, except unregistered sale deed, which...

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

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that every non-compliance with a notice u/s 142(1) gives a separate cause of action for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b)....

Quick Updates: