S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice issued without specifying limb-Levy of penalty not valid [S. 274]
Vibracoustic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2022) 95 ITR 31 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice issued without specifying limb-Levy of penalty not valid [S. 274]
Vibracoustic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2022) 95 ITR 31 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Inadvertently claiming deduction of Corporate Social Responsibility-Suo motu filing revised computation during assessment proceedings.
Sterling Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (A) (2022)95 ITR (SN) 25 (Mum) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Bogus purchases-Income estimated of 30% of purchases-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid.
Grand Prix Engg. Pvt Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2022) 95 ITR 505(Delhi)(Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Penalty Levied by Assessing Officer on two counts of disallowance-Tribunal deleting disallowance on one count and remanding matter on other to Assessing Officer-Deletion of penalty by Commissioner (Appeals) is justified.[S. 10AA]
ACIT v. SJR Commodities and Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2022)96 ITR 64 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Assessing Officer in body of assessment order initiating proceedings for penalty for default of concealment of income-Imposition of penalty qua solitary addition for both defaults-Levy of penalty is not valid.
Vikash Nashine v Dy. CIT (2022)96 ITR 68 (SN) (Raipur) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Estimate of income at 20 % of receipts-Levy of penalty is not valid [S. 44BBB]
Lahmeyer Holding Gambh v. Dy. CIT (2022)96 ITR 455 (Trib) (Delhi) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice not specifying the charge for which penalty was being levied-Levy of penalty is not justified.
Dy. CIT v. Scooters India Ltd. (2022) 96 ITR 460 (Lucknow) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Inaccurate particulars of income-Deemed dividend taxed in the hands of assessee-Question in whose hands dividend to be taxed-cannot be subject matter of penalty for irregular particulars of income-Penalty levied incorrect. [2(22)(e)]
ITO v. Chetan Seth (2022) 97 ITR 597 (Delhi) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Penalty notice not specific whether it is a Concealment of income of furnishing of incorrect particulars of income-No intention of making inaccurate gains by assessee-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified.[S. 274]
Dy. CIT v. Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Ltd. (2022)97 ITR 508 (Mum) (Trib)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Addition deleted-Income deleted by Tribunal could not be held as considered for imposition of penalty.[S.274]
Maharashtra Academy of Engineering and Educational Research v.ITO (2022)97 ITR 31 (SN)(Pune) (Trib)