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

Income Tax

March 1, 2018

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 ...

Income Tax

March 1, 2018

You may also like:

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...

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

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

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 levied u/s 271(1)(c) - the assessee has given evidences, on which no findings was given by Ld. CIT(A), in our view, the assessee reasonably explained the facts...

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...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - when the assessee has explained the entries with necessary evidences and said explanation is not found to be false, then merely for the reason...

Assessee neither challenged reopening nor has been able to disprove the finding of AO - penalty leviable u/s 271(1)(c) as assessee furnished inaccurate particulars and...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Merely because assessee claimed depreciation at 25% treating items to be plant, which claim was not acceptable to revenue, would not by itself...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b)- assessee refused to answer the notice u/s 142(1) - assessee was an attorney of some account holder - levy of penalty confimred - HC

Quick Updates: