The Appellate Tribunal held that despite the addition u/s 69B of ...

Appellate Tribunal Rules Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Unjustified Due to Assessment Year Uncertainty in Land Purchase Case.

July 6, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

The Appellate Tribunal held that despite the addition u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act being justified, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied due to ambiguity regarding the assessment year involved for the unaccounted cash payment made to the Tapadiya family members for the purchase of Baner land. The Tribunal emphasized that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate, allowing the assessee to make new pleas during penalty proceedings, even if the addition was sustained in quantum proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre was not justified in sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c).

View Source

← Previous Next →

The Appellate Tribunal held that despite the addition u/s 69B of ...

Appellate Tribunal Rules Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Unjustified Due to Assessment Year Uncertainty in Land Purchase Case.

July 6, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) concerning the correct classification of income. The Assessing Officer treated the income as 'income...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the assessment order for the assessee and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after...

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) or penalty u/s.271AAA - The provisions of Section 271AAA(3) of the Act specifically excludes the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Failure to file the Return of Income (ITR) - The appellate tribunal addressed two appeals filed by the assessee against penalties imposed under...

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) for under reporting income - defective notice - The Tribunal agrees with the appellant's argument, emphasizing that the AO did not apply his mind...

The ITAT Mumbai ruled on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for estimation of income on bogus purchases. The tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on additions made on an...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - Non-compliance with a notice issued u/s 142(1) - The Tribunal noted that in a previous round of proceedings, a penalty under section 271(1)(b) of...

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...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving the levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) for non-compliance with a notice u/s 142(1) due to the Accountant's Covid-19...

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

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 u/s 271(1)(c) - non recording of satisfaction - When satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act is recorded by the AO in...

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...

Quick Updates: