Income Tax : Discover the implications of Income Tax Act Section 270A and penalties for under-reporting or misreporting income. Learn calculati...
Income Tax : Learn about the penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act of 1961 for various defaults and offenses. Find out the fines ...
Income Tax : Apart from penalty for various defaults, the Income-tax Act also contains provisions for launching prosecution proceedings against...
Income Tax : Apart from levy of penalty for various defaults by the taxpayer, the Income-tax Law also contains provisions for launching prosecu...
Income Tax : Arjuna, while playing on the Football Ground if, a player pushes other players or creates any obstruction then the referee whistle...
Income Tax : Delhi HC: No penalty for New Holland Tractors if assessee's contention was plausible and bona fide, provided full disclosure of fa...
Income Tax : Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad's order canceling penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Co-owner sta...
Income Tax : xplore DCIT Vs Polyplex Corp. Limited case. Learn why penalty for disallowed tax claim isn't justified. Details & key takeaways he...
Income Tax : Can penalty under Section 271(1)(c) be imposed if self-assessment tax was paid before notice u/s 148? Read the detailed analysis o...
Income Tax : Tribunal ruled that mere disallowance of expenses or enhancement of returned income does not automatically warrant the imposition ...
Penalty order did not specify the charge & penalty was imposed purely on the basis of estimation of income so not valid
ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as assessee claimed the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to the interest income under a bonafide belief.
ITAT held that when the notices issued by the AO are bad in law being vague and ambiguous having not specified under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are not sustainable.
ITAT Hyderabad in case of excess stock of gold found during survey held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act up to 100% of the tax evaded is justified instead of 298% as upheld by CIT(A).
Assessee must be informed of grounds of penalty proceedings through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from vice of vagueness
Since the quantum addition stands deleted by the ITAT in the above order, there remains no basis for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c)
If initiation of penalty is one limb & levy of penalty is on other limb, then in absence of proper SCN, there is no merit in levy of penalty
If sales are not disputed, entire alleged bogus purchases cannot be disallowed and only the gross profit on the alleged purchases to be disallowed. No penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on estimated additions.
ITAT held that if a Penalty notice is vague then penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) on that basis were vitiate
Manjulata Sahoo Vs PCIT (ITAT Cuttack) It was the submission that against the order of the Tribunal, the assessee has filed appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court of Orissa and the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Orissa was pleased to admit the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.8 of 2021 vide order dated […]
