Penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) - when the computation was made u/s ...

Income Tax

September 20, 2018

Penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) - when the computation was made u/s 115JB, the aforesaid concealment had no role to play and was totally irrelevant. Therefore, the concealment did not lead to tax evasion at all.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) - when the computation was made u/s ...

Income Tax

September 20, 2018

You may also like:

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

Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) - additions/ disallowances made under normal provisions of the Act, if ultimately the tax liability is determined u/s 115JB - No penalty

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - furnished wrong particulars of its income in terms of profits u/s 115JB - Computation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) - levy of penalty confirmed - AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - the fact that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars for the purpose of determining the tax u/s 115JB stands established - penalty confirmed - HC

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - when the assessee company had been assessed to tax under the deeming provisions of Sec. 115JB of the Act, therefore, on the basis of our...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Concealment of income would have no role to play and would not lead to tax evasion therefore, penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of the...

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) - MAT u/s 115JB was greater than the regular income, book profit was taken as deemed total income u/s 115JB of the Act - penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of...

In a taxing statute one has to go by the clear language of the statute and equity has no role to play while interpreting a taxing statute - HC

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.

Quick Updates: