Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - addition u/s 68 - the entire ...

Income Tax

April 5, 2017

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - addition u/s 68 - the entire addition itself becomes debatable one. It is well settled proposition of law that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on debatable issues - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - addition u/s 68 - the entire ...

Income Tax

April 5, 2017

You may also like:

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) - Validity of notice - It is a well settled proposition of law that penalty cannot be initiated for the limb, which is different from the limb for...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - when we examine penalty levied on account of salary disallowance AO has merely made adhoc addition by way of guess work and the AO has not...

Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Issues on basis of which ALP shown by the assessee has been rejected are debatable - No penalty - AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee has accepted the additions made in the assessment does not by itself justify the imposition of penalty for concealment - AT

MAT is paid, additions were made to regular income, penalty not levied – 115JB, 271(1)(c)

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)- additions u/s 68 - the contention of the assessee cannot be straightway rejected that such error may occur due to software problem - AT

No Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - claim is bonafide and is also debatable and there is no concealment of income.- AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition made on protected assessment - addition in this case was made on protected assessment/addition on estimated basis which is against the law - AT

Quick Updates: