Income Tax : This guide explains the penalty and prosecution framework under the Income-tax Act for AY 2026-27. It highlights the consequences ...
Income Tax : The article explains how offences such as wilful tax evasion, failure to file returns, non-payment of TDS/TCS, falsification of re...
Income Tax : This article outlines major offences under the Income-tax Act that may result in prosecution, including tax evasion, non-payment o...
Income Tax : The law now proposes a single consolidated assessment-cum-penalty order for under-reporting of income, reducing multiple proceedin...
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 : ITAT Chennai held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the AO accepts the income declared in the return filed ...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where bogus purchase addition is sustained only on an estima...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that a deduction claim supported by prevailing judicial precedents cannot attract Section 270A penalty merely bec...
Income Tax : The High Court held that failure to pass the order giving effect within the time prescribed under Section 153 resulted in abatemen...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that immunity under Section 270AA could not be denied when the penalty notice did not specify whether th...
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 […]
Non-specification of limb of the notice would render section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings invalid. ITAT held that notice u/s 271(1)(c) is omnibus notice, thus defective which goes to the root of the matter. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act alleging inaccurate particulars not leviable as assessee was subjected to tax on book profits u/s 115JB.
