#section 271(1)(c)
Log in to FollowLatest section 271(1)(c) updates, provisions, case laws, compliance requirements, tax implications and expert analysis under Income-tax law on TaxGuru.

Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) not justified based on mere high stamp duty valuation of property

Penalty for transfer pricing adjustment not justified if ALP was determined in good faith and with due diligence

Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed for receipt of payment against transaction made by husband, of which she had no knowledge

Penalty justified for failure to Prove Genuineness of Cash Deposits

ITAT refuses plea of ‘Wrong Legal Opinion’ of Assessee being director of a Company

Penalty justified on additional income declared after discovery of same by AO

Penalty cannot be imposed for mere disallowance of Additional Depreciation

Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) for mere change of head of income is not justified

Income disclosure under fear of penalty or other proceedings cannot be termed voluntary

No Penalty for Bonafide Mistake in original Return which was revised later

Mere claim for rebate would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars: Madras High Court

Section 271(1)(c) Penalty cannot be imposed in absence of Disallowance

S. 271(1)(c) Penalty notice without specifying which of two limbs are being put-up is invalid

ITAT deletes penalty on Failure of AO to mention specific limb of section 271(1)(c); Penalty cannot be imposed for mere valuation difference
Explore the latest section 271(1)(c) updates on TaxGuru, including relevant Income-tax Act provisions, rules, notifications, circulars, judicial decisions and compliance guidance. The coverage highlights important tax positions, procedural requirements, assessments, deductions, penalties and litigation developments to help taxpayers and professionals understand the practical implications of changes in income-tax law.
