Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - failure to comply with the notices ...

Income Tax

September 14, 2018

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - failure to comply with the notices issued - the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and reasonable. - penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) for non compliance of section 142(1) deleted.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - failure to comply with the notices ...

Income Tax

September 14, 2018

You may also like:

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) - failure to comply with the notices issued by the A.O u/s 142(1) - the non-compliance on the part of the assessee is due to the reason of...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non compliance of notices u/s 142(1) - the AO was not having the present address of the assessee - when the notice issued u/s 142(1) was not...

Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - penalty cannot be levied where a bonafide claim of the assessee was rejected by the tax department. - AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – assessee has bonafide belief in making the claim that gain arising out of sale of agricultural land is exempt from tax - no penalty - AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - Default by assessee - mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for non compliance of notices issued by AO - penalty confirmed - AT

Levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) - The bonafide or other wise malafide of non compliance is also required to be kept in mind. The tax and interest are statutory levies,...

Failure of registration of service - Belated filing of ST-3 Returns - The short payment of Service Tax was not detected by the Revenue, therefore, the reasonable cause...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - default / non-compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) - AO has completely ignored the request of the assessee then the question of paying the...

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...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted – the act of the assessee was bonafide even though the assessee may have failed to substantiate its claim that the amount was capital receipt - HC

Quick Updates: