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...
Defect in statutory notice in not striking out of irrelevant ground vitiates penalty proceedings for the reason that assessee has not given sufficient notice for preparing his defense, as to grounds on which penalty proceedings have been initiated.
Galaxy Construction and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal relates to levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer in respect of addition made under the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It is an […]
ITAT Delhi held that merely making a claim which is not sustainable in law will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars entailing levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act automatically.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 271-1-c of the Income Tax Act not imposable when the addition on account of bogus purchases is done on adhoc estimated basis As adhoc estimated based addition doesn’t tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Delhi held that as no adjustment on transfer pricing issue would subsist and therefore there is no question of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on such addition.
Victory for Sanjay Duggal as ITAT Delhi quashes assessments under 153A, nullifying penalties. Learn why the penalty orders couldn’t survive. Decided in favor of the assessee.
Specification of Charge of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is an important factor while deciding the matters in litigation- Ganga Iron and Steel Trading Co. v Commissioner of Income Tax dated 22.12.2021 , 447 ITR 743 (Bom.)
Assessee not liable for penalty under Section 271(1 )(c) when an addition is being made with the help of deeming provision of Section 50C
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is leviable as incomes were not offered to taxation with a dishonest intention to conceal the income and evade tax.
ITAT Chennai held that levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unsustainable as the matter is highly debatable.
