Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - The only ...

No Penalty Imposed for Tax Deduction Error u/s 271(1)(c) Due to Statutory Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia).

August 27, 2020

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - The only reason for which the expenditure was disallowed is due to non–deduction of tax at source. In other words, it is statutory disallowance. That being the case, the assessee cannot be accused of submitting inaccurate particulars of income or concealing its income - No penalty - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - The only ...

No Penalty Imposed for Tax Deduction Error u/s 271(1)(c) Due to Statutory Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia).

August 27, 2020

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

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) - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - AO has not applied his mind before initiating the penalty proceedings rather borrowed his satisfaction from the “tax...

Levy of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), does not amount to concealment of income - No penalty.

This case deals with the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, imposed for disallowance of losses on forex derivatives treated as speculative losses and...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowances in the quantum assessment order - whether any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars proved? - Tribunal directs...

ITAT set aside penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after finding no deliberate concealment. The Tribunal noted two key disallowances: first, estimated expense addition was already...

Non deduction of TDS u/s 194A - Assessee could escape the rigors of Sec.40(a)(ia) in terms of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) read with first proviso to sub-section...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed for an ad-hoc disallowance of 20% of expenses made by the Assessing Officer....

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) - bogus claim of deduction under Section 35CCA - penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed - HC

The ITAT held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not imposable on the assessee. The assessee had voluntarily paid tax on income from sale of shares three years prior to...

To impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c), willful concealment is not an essential ingredient - HC

The Tribunal held that based on the financial parameters and risk profile, the assessee qualifies as a developer rather than merely a contractor u/s 80IA of the Income...

Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - shortfall in deduction of tax at source due to difference in opinion - no disallowance could be made by invoking provisions of section...

No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed on the assessee for disallowance of depreciation. The ITAT held that the assessee did not deliberately claim depreciation with an...

Quick Updates: