Income Tax : The law now proposes a single consolidated assessment-cum-penalty order for under-reporting of income, reducing multiple proceedin...
Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...
Income Tax : Understand why an income-tax penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the charge isn't specified as concealment or inaccurate...
Income Tax : Learn how taxpayers can defer income tax penalty proceedings when quantum additions are under appeal. Understand legal grounds and...
Income Tax : Understand penalties for under-reporting or misreporting income under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. Fines range from 50% to ...
Income Tax : The case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of pen...
Income Tax : The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. T...
Income Tax : The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimate...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that penalty proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer does not specify whether the charge is concealment ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that omission of taxable foreign exchange gain in the return attracts penalty. It noted that disclosure during a...
ITAT Delhi held that if a matter is restored to AO for passing a rectification order, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act does not survive. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the penalty order.
ITAT Delhi’s verdict in the case of Gawar Constructions Co. Vs DCIT, illuminating the importance of clear particulars in the imposition of tax penalties. Understand how discrepancies between the initial ‘satisfaction’ and the grounds for penalty can lead to quashing of penalty orders.
ITAT, held that if assessee voluntarily declares income during a survey and later includes it in their regular income tax return, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed.
ITAT Pune held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act duly leviable in case the additional income is disclosed in ITR filed u/s 153A and such additional income is originated out of seized material.
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as addition made on account of meager amount and on account of difference of opinion only.
ITAT Delhi deletes penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income/filing inaccurate particulars in Babita Khurana vs DCIT case. Detailed analysis and ruling provided.
M.A. Projects Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT note that the notice is an omnibus notice without specifying the specific charge upon the assessee and in such circumstances, Higher Courts have held that penalty levied is not sustainable. In this regard, we refer to Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the […]
Voluntary Income declared by assessee on its own i.e. without any detection cannot be considered as equivalent to providing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of Income
Delhi High Court held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as error pointed out by AO was corrected by the assessee before passing of the assessment order.
Dinesh Sitaram Patil Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) We note that, while culminating the reassessment proceeding in the case of the assessee, the Ld. AO vide concluding para placed at page 4 of his order communicated the assessee his action of initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Act for ‘under reporting / mis-reporting’ of income […]
