A mere omission in offering the capital gains to tax would not ...

Income Tax

June 19, 2017

A mere omission in offering the capital gains to tax would not ipso facto reflect concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in terms of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act

View Source

← Previous Next →

A mere omission in offering the capital gains to tax would not ...

Income Tax

June 19, 2017

You may also like:

A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of either suppressio veri or suggestio falsy. By the mere reason of such concealment or of furnishing...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition made on account of mistake in treating the income from transfer of depreciable asset as long-term capital gain instead of short term...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - failure on the part of legal heir of the deceased assessee to explain the source of part of the deposits - The mere failure on the part of the...

Capital Gains - transfer by mere agreement - the transfer of the above stated property took place only in AY 2011-12, when assessee has declared the capital gain...

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - the mere disallowance under section 43B would not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - no penalty.

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - recording of satisfaction - mere direction in the assessment order to initiate penalty proceedings - Concealment/furnishing inaccurate...

Undisclosed Income - scope of statements recorded u/s 132(4) - admission of payment of Capitation Fee to the Engineering College does not mean ipso facto declaration of...

TP adjustment - disallowance of referral fee - the details and specifics were unavailable despite repeated queries in that regard, ipso facto could not have been a...

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - merely on the basis of additions, AO would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income...

Addition u/s 41(1) - Although, enforcement of a debt being barred by limitation does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that there is cessation or remission of liability - HC

Quick Updates: