Tag Archive: PENALTY

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

59 total views

59 total views 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 Answer:…
Read more

271(1)(c), AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10, AY 2010-11, AY 2011-12, Cases Income tax, Decisions, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal, In Favour of Assessee, Income Tax

Question : Is Penalty under Section 271E is permissible in the absence of regular assessment framed against the assessee by the Revenue? ITAT – Ahmedabad in the case of Vijayaben G Zalavadia, … vs The Jt. Cit, Gandhinagar on 11 May, 2022. Answer: Penalty Quashed.

109 total views

109 total views Question : Is Penalty under Section 271E is permissible in the absence of regular assessment framed against the assessee by the Revenue? ITAT – Ahmedabad in the case of Vijayaben G Zalavadia, … vs The Jt. Cit, Gandhinagar on 11…
Read more

271E, Ahmedabad Tribunal, AY 2010-11, AY 2011-12, AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15, AY 2015-16, AY 2016-17, In Favour of Assessee

Whether Penalty u/s 272a(2)(e) imposed is justified for Late / Non-filing of ITR when the Assessee was under the bona fide belief that ITR was not required to file since its incomes is exempt under s. 10(23C)(iiiab)? ITAT Jaipur passed the order on this issue on 24 May, 2021. For full order kindly click the link to get full order.

402 total views

402 total views Whether Penalty u/s 272a(2)(e) imposed is justified for Late / Non-filing of ITR when the Assessee was under the bona fide belief that ITR was not required to file since its incomes is exempt under s. 10(23C)(iiiab)? ITAT Jaipur passed…
Read more

10(23C)(iiiab), 11, 12, 139(4A), 272A(2)(e0, 273B, In Favour of Assessee, Jaipur Tribunal

January 18, 2022

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

174 total views

174 total views 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…
Read more

271(1)(c), 271(1)(c), AY 2009-10, Delhi, Delhi Tribunal, In Favour of Assessee, ITAT, Penalty, penalty 271(1)(c), penalty proceeding/s 271(1)(c) pending

जिस का टर्नओवर 50 करोड़ से ज्यादा है उन्हें डिजिटल पेमेंट सिस्टम इंस्टॉल करना पड़ेगा तथा वह सिस्टम चालू हो जाए इसकी व्यवस्था करनी पड़ेगी अगर 31 जनवरी 2020 तक यह व्यवस्था नहीं होती है तो धारा 271DB प्रोविजन के आधार पर ₹5000 रोज की पेनल्टी लगाई जा सकती है

301 total views

301 total views जिस का टर्नओवर 50 करोड़ से ज्यादा है उन्हें डिजिटल पेमेंट सिस्टम इंस्टॉल करना पड़ेगा तथा वह सिस्टम चालू हो जाए इसकी व्यवस्था करनी पड़ेगी अगर 31 जनवरी 2020 तक यह व्यवस्था नहीं होती है तो धारा 271DB…
Read more

January 29, 2020