Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - it was the assessee which has ...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Deleted as Assessee's Property Value Details Found Sufficient and Accurate by Appeals Authority.

September 30, 2020

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - it was the assessee which has actually provided all the details in respect of value of properties which were purchased from Financial Year 1990-91 onwards and the respective written down value at the end of each year before the lower authorities. It was the very same details that were furnished by the assessee which was placed reliance by the ld. CIT(A) while levying the penalty. - Penalty deleted - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - it was the assessee which has ...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Deleted as Assessee's Property Value Details Found Sufficient and Accurate by Appeals Authority.

September 30, 2020

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

This case deals with the levy of penalties u/ss 271AAA and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in relation to various additions made to the assessee's income based on seized...

Imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for two types of additions: (1) the addition made u/s 50C on the difference between stamp duty value and sale...

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - recording of specific finding or not? - In para 7 of the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer held that it is found to be a fit...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with a notice issued u/s 142(1) during reassessment proceedings....

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) involved an addition based on estimation by the Assessing Officer, which was later re-estimated by the CIT(A) to disallow 10% of the...

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) was imposed for excess deduction claimed u/s 10B. The assessee furnished all relevant facts for computing total income, and provided detailed...

The Assessing Officer (AO) consciously deleted irrelevant portions from the show cause notice, mentioning only the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income....

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee company failed to provide bonafide explanation for inflated expenses claimed in revised return, contrary to audited...

Voluntary surrender of income by assessee cannot be considered concealment. AO failed to prove concealment, merely concluded voluntary surrender as concealment....

Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) - Unexplained Expenditure on Stamp Duty and Registration Charges made out of Undisclosed Income - There was no dishonest intent of the assessee...

Penalty under section 271(1) (c) - the cost of construction in the immovable property was found to be a false claim - where the claim of the assessee was found to be...

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.

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

Levy of Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The ITAT ruled that since there was no variation between the returned and assessed income, there was no concealment of income by the...

Quick Updates: