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 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.
P.S. Jayaraman Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Ld. CIT(A) concurred with assessee’s submissions that deduction u/s 54F was solely due to difference in interpretations of the provisions and therefore, the penalty was not to be levied on this count. However, the provisions of Sec. 54EC were clear that the investment in a financial year was not […]
Assessee was entitled to relief on the certificate granted by the prescribed authority u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act to the institution to which it donated the sum of money for claiming deduction under that section if it was subsisting and valid at the time the donation was made.
Since additions have been deleted, the very foundation to visit assessee with penalty does not survive. Hence, no penalty is imposable upon assessee
ACIT Vs Amit Tiwari (ITAT Indore) The submissions of the assessee are that penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB as initiated is bad in law on account of firstly penalty notice so issued is defective as it does not disclose specific charge and secondly there is no concealed income as search took place prior to due date […]
It is not in dispute that the assessee accounted for provision of interest twice by mistake and on realising such mistake, necessary rectification entries were passed in the subsequent year and the same was offered as income.
Additions made on ad-hoc basis on estimation does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as there is no conclusive proof of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) already decided in favour of the assessee.
CIT Vs S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Sub-Whether there can be any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of a debatable issue? The Division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering department’s appeal when ITAT had given relief to the assessee by holding that there could not have been penalty […]
