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...
In this article, possibility for levy of penalty U/s. 270A of the Income Tax Act has been analysed in case where a person deposits his unaccounted cash in bank account and paid due tax thereon in return of income for AY 2017-18.
The penalty of 200% is a reality and levied under section 270A of the income tax act, 1961 in cases of under-reporting of income or misreporting of income.
The ban of Rs.500/1000 note in India is creating havoc in the Indian markets. Everybody is either rushing towards banks or towards jeweler market to safeguard the black money.
Longstanding and never ending has been the debate regarding what is penalty and whether mens rea is an essential ingredient in levy of penalty or bonafide belief that what was being done was correct would hold good and save the offender from penalty. Over the years the law has evolved and Courts of Law have tried to lay down a law providing clarity in this regard.
It is well settled that the parameters of judging the justification for addition made in the assessment case of the assessee is different from the penalty imposed on account of concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income and that certain disallowance/addition could legally be made in the assessment
It has become a normal tendency to subject an Assessee to Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in all cases where the Assessee refrains to file an appeal, with a hope to end the nightmare which began with selection of case for scrutiny by accepting the general additions in Assessment order.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) inspite of the fact that the assessee did not furnish any explanation either before the Assessing officer
Recently, Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. vs CIT (C.A.No. 9772 of 2013) has pronounced the judgment in respect of section 271(1)(c), which has again raised the vexed issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Having heard the submissions of both the sides and on due consideration of the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the transaction in respect of the share trading was duly disclosed at the time of filing of the return. Some of the income was shown as long-tern capital gain and part of the income was also shown as speculative business in shares/scripts trading.
Even if it is assumed that the assessee continued to remain the owner of the property throughout the year, the other condition of section 32, that the property should have been used for the purpose of the assessee’s business has not been satisfied. There is no proof that the director resided in the property and it was only a claim made by the assessee in the course of the arguments.
