Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Merely because the ...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Not Justified for Uncontested Tax Additions, Appeals Not Mandatory for Defense.

March 1, 2018

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Merely because the assessee-company did not challenge the addition before Ld. CIT(A), is no ground to levy penalty against the assessee-company - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Merely because the ...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Not Justified for Uncontested Tax Additions, Appeals Not Mandatory for Defense.

March 1, 2018

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

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...

Monetary limit for filing of appeal by revenue in case of penalty - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on bogus purchases - Quantum proceedings and penalty proceedings are...

The Appellate Tribunal held that despite the addition u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act being justified, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied due to ambiguity...

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...

The Assessing Officer (AO) consciously deleted irrelevant portions from the show cause notice, mentioning only the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income....

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non recording of satisfaction - When satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act is recorded by the AO in...

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

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed for an ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of expenses made by the Assessing Officer....

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of bogus purchases by applying the profit rate - Once there is no reason to disbelieve the sales made by the assessee and...

The ITAT Mumbai ruled on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for estimation of income on bogus purchases. The tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on additions made on an...

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...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - property dealer - addition on account of cash retained - The facts of the case may justify the addition in the quantum case, but the parameters...

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 35 - AO has not brought out his case as to why penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act...

The assessee had conceded the compensation income to be included as income from other sources. However, upon judicial examination, the compensation was found to be...

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

Quick Updates: