Since assessee had included the surrendered amount in its revised return and no such concealment or non-disclosure was made as assessee had made a complete disclosure of income in its revised return. Therefore, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be levied.
Kamta Prasad Mittal Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Lucknow) It is an undisputed fact that a Demand Note was issued by BSNL requiring the assessee to make payments in cash and genuinity of the payments to BSNL was never doubted by the With regard to the observation of the ld. CIT(A) that BSNL is not a […]
Necessary TDS was deducted and it was deposited in the Government Treasury. All these are on record and only there is a technical error that in the challan PAN number of the assessee is mentioned instead of TAN in the relevant column on account of bona-fide mistake, for which assessee should not be penalized or punished when there is no loss to the Revenue.
Whether penalty under section 271B of the Act could be levied in a case where the books of account were maintained by the assessee. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in that case held that where no account has been maintained, section 271B does not get attracted and instead recourse under section 271A can be taken.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow bench recently held that the charitable nature of the activities of a society cannot be suspected as the same was within its objects as given in the bye-laws.
Provisions of section 50C of the Act is not applicable to the cold storage building so to substitute actual sale consideration by deemed sale consideration and the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 147/143(3) of the Act cannot be a subject matter of section 263.
At the outset, Learned A. R. submitted that assessee is running a school and had been claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iii) and now the assessee had applied for registration u/s 12AA which the CIT (Exemptions) has refused relying on the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act.
In the instant case, nothing is on record to show that there was any malafide intention on the part of the assessee to conceal the income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income and there was an omission while filing the return of income which was rectified through challan on the very date of passing the assessment order.
The ITAT, Lucknow bench in M/s Maheshwari Flour Mills vs. JCIT, has held that expenses related to the fundamentals of the assessee’s business cannot be disallowed merely n ground that they were not vouched.
The ITAT bench comprising of Accountant Member T. S. Kapoor and Judicial Member Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not attract when assessee makes an Ineligible Claim.
