Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Claim of any expenditure has to be ...

Penalty Confirmed u/s 271(1)(c) for Lack of Evidence in Expenditure Claim; Books and Reports Insufficient Proof.

November 1, 2012

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Claim of any expenditure has to be proved with corroborative evidence - Entries in the books of accounts or auditors reports or Board of Directors Meeting cannot take place of a piece of genuine evidence. - penalty confirmed - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Claim of any expenditure has to be ...

Penalty Confirmed u/s 271(1)(c) for Lack of Evidence in Expenditure Claim; Books and Reports Insufficient Proof.

November 1, 2012

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

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

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...

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...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Mere making of a...

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...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The finding of the authorities based on the evidence of the valuer, which was corroborated by the circumstantial evidence - Levy of penalty confirmed - HC

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - adjustment made u/s 92CA - penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on the adjustment made u/s 92CA is not...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied on additional income voluntarily offered in the statement recorded u/s 132(4). However, no reference was made to corroborative...

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

Section 271(1)(c) penalty was held invalid due to improper issuance of notice, as no proceedings were pending when the notice was issued on 19.12.2019. Section 271A...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - wrong claim of set off loss - explanation was not found false - no iota of evidence of concealment of any fact relating to particulars of income...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- Wrongful claim of depreciation - The attempts made by the assessee are indicative of frivolous nature of claim - penalty confirmed - AT

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...

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - forex loss was claimed as revenue expenditure - inadvertent claim of expenditure would not, ipso facto, amount to concealment of income...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Revenue expenditure or not - expenses on NPA’s - merely because the assessee has claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or not...

Quick Updates: