S. 271AAA : Penalty – Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007 –
Payment of tax with interest before assessment was made-Deletion of penalty was held to be justified [ S. 132(4)]
S. 271AAA : Penalty – Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007 –
Payment of tax with interest before assessment was made-Deletion of penalty was held to be justified [ S. 132(4)]
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -When show cause notice does not strike out the inappropriate words, levy of penalty was held to be not justified . [ S. 274 ]
Jeetmal Choraria v. ACIT ( 2018) 91 taxmann.com 311 (kol)(Trib) www.itatonline.orgS. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -Satisfaction was not recorded in absolute term – levy of penalty was held to be not justified . [ S. 274 ]
Indrani Sunil Pillai v. ACIT ( Mum)(Trib) www.itatonline.orgS.271(1)( c ): Penalty — Concealment- Allocation of common expenses – Not a case of filing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income- Penalty cannot be imposed .
Pheonix Lamps Ltd. (2018) 61 ITR 769 (Delhi) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Capital gains- Disclosed in the return filed pursuance of reassessment notice – Levy of penalty was held to be not justified [ S. 45, 148 ]
Pankaj Kumar Gupta v. ITO ( Lucknow)(Trib) www.itatonline.orgS. 271(1)(c): Penalty –Concealment – Wrong claim of depreciation by crediting capital subsidy to reserves instead of reducing from actual cost/ WDV does not attract the penalty
Prafful industries (P) Ltd. V. DCIT (Delhi)(Trib) , www.itatonline.orgS. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Claim of deduction – Payable -Difference of opinion amongst High Court – Deletion of penalty was held to be justified . [ S. 40(a)(ia) ]
CIT v. Manzoor Ahmad Walvir. (2018) 400 ITR 89 (J & K) (HC)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Claim of deduction – Payable -Difference of opinion amongst High Court – Deletion of penalty was held to be justified . [ S. 40(a)(ia) ]
CIT v. Manzoor Ahmad Walvir. (2018) 400 ITR 89 (J & K) (HC)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Unaccounted sales and un explained cash credits –Quantum addition was up held by High Court -Levy of penalty was held to be justified . [ Explanation 1 ]
CIT v. N. Jayaprakash. (2018) 400 ITR 99 / 163 DTR 350/ ( 2019) 307 CTR 627 (Ker) (HC)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -Capital gains- Cancellation of agreement – Amount receivable in respect of land was not transferred, hence penalty cannot be levied . [ S.2(47) (v), 45 ]
PCIT v. Sewa Singh Sekhwan. (2018) 400 ITR 347 (P&H) (HC)