Finance : Learn about Section 270A introduced in Finance Act 2016, effective from April 1, 2017, outlining penalties for under-reporting and...
Income Tax : Explore why penalties should not be imposed on estimated income, supported by legal rulings and principles ensuring fair tax admin...
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 : When an assessee voluntarily discloses income and the assessment is based on this disclosure without any changes, imposing a penal...
Income Tax : Penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed based on estimated additions without concrete evidence of concealment or inacc...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai removes penalty imposed on Sunil Bhagwandas Vorani (HUF) as addition was made on estimation basis, not due to concealm...
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...
The penalty of 200% is a reality and levied under section 270A of the income tax act, 1961 in cases of under-reporting of income or misreporting of income.
The ban of Rs.500/1000 note in India is creating havoc in the Indian markets. Everybody is either rushing towards banks or towards jeweler market to safeguard the black money.
Longstanding and never ending has been the debate regarding what is penalty and whether mens rea is an essential ingredient in levy of penalty or bonafide belief that what was being done was correct would hold good and save the offender from penalty. Over the years the law has evolved and Courts of Law have tried to lay down a law providing clarity in this regard.
It is well settled that the parameters of judging the justification for addition made in the assessment case of the assessee is different from the penalty imposed on account of concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income and that certain disallowance/addition could legally be made in the assessment
It has become a normal tendency to subject an Assessee to Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in all cases where the Assessee refrains to file an appeal, with a hope to end the nightmare which began with selection of case for scrutiny by accepting the general additions in Assessment order.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) inspite of the fact that the assessee did not furnish any explanation either before the Assessing officer
Recently, Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. vs CIT (C.A.No. 9772 of 2013) has pronounced the judgment in respect of section 271(1)(c), which has again raised the vexed issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Having heard the submissions of both the sides and on due consideration of the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the transaction in respect of the share trading was duly disclosed at the time of filing of the return. Some of the income was shown as long-tern capital gain and part of the income was also shown as speculative business in shares/scripts trading.
Even if it is assumed that the assessee continued to remain the owner of the property throughout the year, the other condition of section 32, that the property should have been used for the purpose of the assessee’s business has not been satisfied. There is no proof that the director resided in the property and it was only a claim made by the assessee in the course of the arguments.
The question of concealment of income and whether the revised return was filed voluntarily or not is a question of fact to be examined and decided upon the facts and circumstances of the each case and, therefore, it was not permissible to the Tribunal to merely rely on earlier orders where this issue was considered and penalties were cancelled.
