Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - A mere bonafide omission on the part of ...

Income Tax

December 2, 2019

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - A mere bonafide omission on the part of the assessee to account for the interest portion of the refund (which though had duly been reflected in his ‘Capital account’), would though have justified an addition to the said extent, however, a levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) merely for the said bonafide mistake would be totally unjustified.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - A mere bonafide omission on the part of ...

Income Tax

December 2, 2019

You may also like:

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

Failure on the part of the assessee to file the returns voluntarily, as statutorily prescribed, would be a culpable act or omission attracting penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

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 levied u/s.271(1)(c) - excess expenses disallowed and suppression of receipts - being bonafide mistake in accounting the total contract receipts, no penalty.

Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – mere admission of appeal by the High Court is sufficient to debar the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act - AT

Penalty for concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act - Claim of capital loss as bad debt - bonafide belief - no penalty - HC

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance u/s 40 (a)(ia) only for lack of payment of TDS while the payment was bonafide - Though the failure on the part of the...

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 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

Quick Updates: