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 Mumbai deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act as penalty order was issued without striking off the irrelevant limb/ inapplicable words.
Pankajkumar Babulal Tiwari Vs ACIT (ITAT Amhadabad) Asessee under the bona fide belief not offered income on receipt from LIC in original return however rectified the same while filing the return under section 148 of the Act. The assessee also paid due tax on such receipt even before issuance of notice under section 148 of […]
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.
