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 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.
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
