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 Mumbai held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without informing the charges framed for initiation of the same via statutory notice renders the entire proceeding inacceptable.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable on account of human error committed by the accountant as the same is not willful attempt to conceal income.
ITAT Delhi held that issuance of notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the particular limb under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated concludes that the notice is issued in a stereotyped manner without applying mind and accordingly imposition of penalty is bad in law.
ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance of expenses per se cannot mean that the assessee has furnished incorrect particulars of income. Accordingly, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable.
ITAT Hyderabad held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income tax Act cannot be cancelled merely because of non-specification of limb i.e., for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particular of income under which penalty is levied.
ITAT held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on Bogus purchase addition cannot be levied where addition was made on estimated basis.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as all the particulars duly furnished by the assessee relating to source of investment, mere rejection of the claim of the assessee cannot invite levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty deleted.
Jharkhand High Court held that when search is initiated, penalty is leviable under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) post initiation of search is unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed on the basis of legal fiction of section 50C of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chandigarh held that claiming of wrong depreciation on the advice of auditor is bona fide claim and hence penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable.
