Initiation of prosecution - Penalty upheld by ITAT - substantial ...

Income Tax

March 20, 2019

Initiation of prosecution - Penalty upheld by ITAT - substantial question of law relating to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) pending before High Court - at this stage, there would no question of launching prosecution - initiation of prosecution stayed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Initiation of prosecution - Penalty upheld by ITAT - substantial ...

Income Tax

March 20, 2019

You may also like:

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - the assessment order, by a fiction of law, is deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings - HC

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – Tribunal proceeded on hyper- technicalities and acted as though every seizure must entail initiation of proceedings u/s 271 of the Act - no penalty - HC

Penalty u/s 271C -LTA - Mere admission of the appeal by the High Court on the substantial questions of law as have been quoted above, would make it apparent that the...

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - scope of Section 275(1A) - once substantial question of law against quantum additions are admitted by Hon’ble HC u/s 260A, the tribunal shall...

Stay of demand for penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - quantum appeal pending - assessee prima-facie having fair chance of win - enforcement for recovery would cause serious loss...

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The Revenue argued that the assessee's actions constituted furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing income. However, the High...

Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - Nature of interest income - capital receipt or revenue receipt - This being a highly debatable issue and once there is a debate as assessee’s...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - When the addition was set aside, there was no question of imposition of penalty - HC

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - Since it has been found that the show cause notice dated 12.02.2008 that was issued to the Assessee was vague and the...

Direction in original appellate proceeding - Not challenged - it cannot now question the findings of the lower appellate authority based on earlier direction - No...

Quick Updates: