-
Question: Consequences of Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c). ITAT – Delhi in the case of Malook Nagar, New Delhi vs Acit Central Circle-15, New Delhi on 13 May, 2022
-
Q.Consequences of issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without mentioning whether the notice is for concealment or the notice for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. ITAT Delhi decided the order on 3.11.2021 in the case of Acit, Central Circle-18, New … vs Inayatali Esmail Soomar, , Delhi. Kindly click the link to get full order.
-
क्या होगा जब पुन: कर निर्धारण के लिए धारा 148 का नोटिस गलत जगह भेजकर आईटीओ रिअसेसमेंट कर दे। 6 नवंबर 2020 को आईटीआई बेंगलुरु ने DIVYA S RAO vs. आईटीओ
-
ITAT DELHI on Mar 19, 2020 cancelled the penalty levied as the notice issued by the AO was held as bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. ADMAN ADVERTISING vs ACIT
-
Supreme Court on 24.4.2020 held that no addition u/s 68 can be allowed when the CIT Appeal deleted the penalty on the same credit entry on the ground that the assessee establish the credentials. High Court also held that when the books of accounts rejected for GP addition purpose, but then, if those books of accounts did disclose certain other assets, which are wrongly shown to be liabilities, and for acquisition of which the assessee did not show the source, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer was not entitled to use the books of accounts for this purpose. Basir Ahmed Sisodiya Vs. ITO
-
ITAT BOMBAY on 13 March, 2020 hold that it is settled position of law that penalty u/s271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the additions as made by the AO was a pure estimate and nothing concrete as to bogus purchases were brought on records by the AO by making any further enquiries or investigation though the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the alleged bogus purchases from the Hawala. ITO vs. PREMKUMAR SHEHGAL
-
No Penalty 271(1)(c) ITAT Chandigarh held that since the income has already been declared in the valid revised return (though after service of Summons issued by ADIT (inv.)) filed within the limitation period prescribed for filing the same therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of the aforesaid income declared is not leviable and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted. Penalty u/s 271AAC can be levied only when there is an addition or disallowance and which it is deemed that he has evaded the payment of tax for computing the penalty so leviable. Smt. Parkash Kaur, Ludhiana vs ACIT
-
ITAT DELHI held on Mar 19, 2020 that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. M/S GIRI BUILDWELL PVT LTD. vs. ITO
-
Search case-Initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and conducting the proceedings u/s 271AAA is bad in law. VISHAKAPATNAM BENCH ‘’ BENCH held on Mar 4, 2020
-
KOLKATA TRIBUNAL on 8.9.2019 held that Section 68 of the Act provides that if any sum found credited in the year in respect of which the assessee fails to explain the nature and source shall be assessed as its undisclosed income. In the facts of the present case, both the nature & source of the share application received was fully explained by the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants. The PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments were placed on AO’s record. Without doing so, the addition made by the AO is based on conjectures and surmises cannot be justified. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no addition was warranted under Section 68 of the Act. The amount of Rs. 31,75,000/-, as it pertains to the previous assessment year is deleted and for balance sum of Rs.2,66,00,000/- received during the year, the assessee has proved identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the share subscribers, hence, same is deleted. (Para 38) EVERGREEN RESIDENCY PVT. LTD. vs ITO