Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Tribunal found no ...

Tribunal Rejects Tax Penalty: Assessee's Accurate Records and Minor Discrepancies Lead to Favorable Decision.

April 27, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Tribunal found no justification for imposing a penalty as the assessee had sufficient cash balances and transparently recorded the land purchase in the books, supported by audit reports. Emphasized that agreeing to additions in quantum proceedings does not automatically warrant a penalty. - Regarding the issue related to Contractual Receipts Discrepancy: Considering the meager amount of discrepancy compared to the total income, lack of mala fide intention, and explanation regarding accounting practices, the Tribunal deemed the penalty unjustified. Overall, the Tribunal concluded that neither issue warranted the imposition of penalties, thereby ruling in favor of the assessee.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Tribunal found no ...

Tribunal Rejects Tax Penalty: Assessee's Accurate Records and Minor Discrepancies Lead to Favorable Decision.

April 27, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

Levy of penalty u/s 129(5) of GST Act for discrepancy between PIN code of petitioner in Tax Invoices and E-Way Bill. Court held minor discrepancy in PIN code in GST...

Levy of penalties u/ss 122 and 129 of CGST/SGST Acts - expiry of e-way bill - mens rea in penalty imposition. Technically, violation of law by petitioner in transporting...

The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was questioned whether a precise charge was brought against the assessee and if the...

The Appellate Tribunal found that the penalty was initiated u/s. 271DA instead of u/s. 271D, which led to confusion and violated the assessee's right to a fair hearing....

Prosecution Proceedings initiated u/s 276C - Bogus LTCG - guilty mind i.e., mens rea - willful evasion of tax on claims made under the head LTCG/Short Term Capital Loss...

The ITAT Mumbai considered a case involving a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal found the...

The assessee sold agricultural land during the year which the Assessing Officer (AO) treated as a capital asset, leading to levy of long-term capital gains tax. The...

Penalty levied u/s 274 read with Section 270A - assessee computed tax on disallowed depreciation amount at maximum marginal rate and levied 200% penalty on payable tax -...

Penalty order u/s 271AAB for treating an amount included in the Return of Income as 'undisclosed income' was found unjustified. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) imposed on minor - The tribunal upheld the appellant's argument regarding being a minor, stating that penalty proceedings initiated against a minor...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(C) for non-filing of income tax return despite taxable income and interest income. Assessee...

100% EOU - Confirmation of demand and levy of penalty - The Tribunal was right in stating that the intention of the assessee was not as that of an honest tax payer as...

Levy of Penalty u/s 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Errors in e-way bills - The Court emphasized that minor typographical errors in e-way bills,...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee did not disclose non-eligibility...

Disallowance made u/s 43B regarding expenses claimed by the assessee. There was confusion about which limb penalty is to be levied. The disallowance confirmed by the...

Quick Updates: