Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Smt. Suma Narsimha Rao Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
Related Assessment Year : 2015-16
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Smt. Suma Narsimha Rao Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) ITAT Bangalore: Mere Wrong Claim u/s 54 Does Not Attract Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) The Bangalore ITAT deleted penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) where the assessee, a non-resident, had claimed deduction under Section 54 on reinvestment of capital gains. Although the claim was disallowed because the sale deed was executed beyond the prescribed time, the Tribunal held that substantial investment was made within the stipulated period, and all facts were fully disclosed in the return. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue was debatable and arguable,...
This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.

Author Bio

CA Vijayakumar Shetty qualified in 1994 and in practice since then. Founding partner of Shetty & Co. He is a graduate from St Aloysius College, Mangalore . View Full Profile

My Published Posts

No Specific Charge, No Penalty: Mumbai ITAT Cancels Section 270A Levy for Defective Notice Mere Investigation Wing Alert Is Not ‘Reason to Believe’: ITAT Quashes Penny Stock Reopening Liquor Trader Gets Relief as ITAT Reduces GP Rate to 3.13% & Deletes Separate Expense Disallowance From Clean Chit to Crores in Penalty: SEBI Reopens Suzlon Case and Strikes Hard ITAT Restores Section 69 Matter to AO After Ex Parte Assessment and Appeal Orders View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930