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...
Assessee had already closed down its business and therefore, could not file part documents as required by Assessing Officer, however, from documents produced, it is apparently clear that required details with regard to purchase price/value of property was available before authorities
Lakhwinder Singh Panag Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) A perusal of the record shows that in the quantum proceedings the explanation of the assessee that addition u/s 40A(3) on facts was not warranted, was rejected. The addition stood made. The issue was carried in appeal before the CIT(A) who also confirmed the addition by his order […]
M. Prabaharan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Before us, the Chartered Accountant Shri Jeevarathinam categorically admitted in writing that the duplication of assets has happened while calculating the depreciation as per Income Tax Act while computing the tax computation sheet by his staff. He admitted that while doing so, the staff has wrongly computed the deprecation value […]
Dipakkumar Ishwarlal Panchal Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Admittedly the concealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, for which act penalty under section 271(1)(c) in the present case has been levied, related to the income added as per the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. More particularly on account of the fact that actual consideration paid […]
DCIT Vs Mahalaxmi Realtors (ITAT Pune) ITAT held that findings in the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purpose of the penalty proceedings. It is also well settled that the criteria and yardstick for the purpose of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are different than those applied for making or confirming the addition. […]
We are of the considered opinion that estimated additions do not call for levy of penalty. Therefore, by deleting the impugned penalties for all the years, we allow the appeals of the assessee.
ACIT Vs Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited (ITAT Delhi) The penalty order reveals that the impugned penalty has been imposed by the Ld. AO for the solitary reason that the assessee made claim for deduction of expenses which were not allowable. The assessee furnished explanation for claiming higher deduction of expenses in the revised computation. […]
Bhartiya City Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) A conspectus of Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, makes it clear that the statute visualizes the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings to be wholly distinct and independent of each other. While the Assessing Officer may be justified in making estimated disallowance in quantum […]
No Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income when assessee filed Revised Return offering to tax rental income
Kalra Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted, where the Assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. […]
