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 disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A) was challenged by the assessee before the ITAT in an appeal. The ITAT has decided the said appeal in favour of the assessee. Therefore, at present, when the addition itself has been set aside, there cannot be any case for levy of penalty for concealment of income.
In the present case, the income computed as per the normal procedure was less than the income determined by legal fiction namely book profits under Section 115JB of the Act.
CIT Vs Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd (Delhi High Court)- When the assessee accepts the excess depreciation claimed inadvertently and the same being disallowed by the AO, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted in such a case.
Renu Hingorani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – The AO had not questioned the actual consideration received by the assessee but the addition was made purely on the basis of the deeming provisions of s. 50C. The AO had not doubted the agreement or given any finding that the actual sale consideration was more than the sale consideration stated in the sale agreement. The fact that the assessee agreed to the addition is not conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per agreement was incorrect and wrong. Accordingly, there was no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
We find that the A.O., CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal has only interpreted the provisions of sec. 80-IA(9) and Sec. 80HHC in a different way. As held by their Lordship, in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd (supra) that merely because the assessee has made some legal claim which has not been accepted by the A.O. that will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income of the assessee. In our opinion, there is no justification to support the A.O. for levy of the penalty on the claim of the assessee u/s 80HHC, which was not accepted. We, accordingly, delete the entire penalty by cancelling the penalty order passed by the A.O.
If the Assessing officer or Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under the Act is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, then he can direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty u/s. 271(1) (c), a sum not less than 100% but not exceeding 300% of the amount tax sought to be evaded by reason of concealment of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income.
CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762 = (2010) 322 ITR 158. As the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not.
CIT vs Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (322 ITR 158) Supreme Court- It was held that a mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee and if the contention of the Revenue to this effect is accepted then in case
It was the duty of the assessee to show with exact figures the basis of calculating the amount of brokerage to be returned to the existing clients. In fact the assessee itself stated in its letter dated 17-3-2003 that it was having a somewhat raw system of deciding and accounting such claims and that these claims were decided on ad hoc basis by the director upon the request from the clients.
BUDGET 2009 has proposed to substitute existing explanation 5A below section 271(1)(c ) with new explanation 5A with retrospective effect from 01/06/2007. This new section provides that if in the course of search an assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewllery or other valuable articles or thing; and the assessee […]
