Loading ITAT cases…
63 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they were issued in a stereotyped manner without specifying whether the penalty was for concealment or inaccurate particulars, indicating a non-application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they were issued in a stereotyped manner without specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they were issued in a stereotyped manner without specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they were issued in a stereotyped manner without specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they were issued in a stereotyped manner without specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This indicated a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.
For AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) applicable due to undisclosed income discovered post-search. For AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, noting that revised returns were accepted and assessed income matched the revised income.
For AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) applicable due to undisclosed income discovered post-search. For AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, noting that revised returns were accepted and assessed income matched the revised income.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they were issued in a stereotyped manner without specifying whether the penalty was for concealment or inaccurate particulars, indicating a non-application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notices issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) were bad in law as they were issued in a stereotyped manner without specifying whether the penalty was for concealment or inaccurate particulars, indicating a non-application of mind by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delay in filing TDS returns. The penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld as justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delay in filing TDS returns. The penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld as justified.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- as the lender's creditworthiness was not substantiated. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal against the penalty, setting aside the order due to a defective notice.
For AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12, the Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) applicable due to undisclosed income discovered post-search. For AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, noting that revised returns were accepted and assessed income matched the revised income.