← All Phrases

“Section 271(18)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(18)2 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(18) is CIT v. Bacardi Martini India Ltd. (288 ITR 585), cited in 39 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(18)

CIT v. Bacardi Martini India Ltd.
288 ITR 585 · 2007 · High Court
39
citing judgments

Penalty for concealment of income cannot be imposed merely due to a difference of opinion between the taxpayer and the Assessing Officer; there must be an intention to evade tax liability.

2. 2. CIT v. Calcutta Credit Corporation
166 ITR 29 · 1987 · High Court
18
citing judgments

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable merely because an addition to taxable income has been made. There must be a case made out for penalty, especially if there are two possible interpretations of the facts.

Judgments citing Section 271(18)

Yogender Mohan Rustagi, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 28, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Yogender Mohan Rustagi Vs Acit Central Circle -28 548/549 Katra Ishwar Bhawan Delhi Khari Baoli Delhi-110006 Pan No. Agupr9629J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271A

holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(18) with retrospective Initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Jet Lite (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6 (Now CC-1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 839/DEL/2019[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 156Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

satisfaction that appellant assessment order, had concealed ) some very vital therefore, provisions of transactions relating to of issue and section 271(18) would not transfer of the shares and had not come come to the rescue of the clean with all the relevant facts and department. documents for the purpose