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...
The question of concealment of income and whether the revised return was filed voluntarily or not is a question of fact to be examined and decided upon the facts and circumstances of the each case and, therefore, it was not permissible to the Tribunal to merely rely on earlier orders where this issue was considered and penalties were cancelled.
The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A) was challenged by the assessee before the ITAT in an appeal. The ITAT has decided the said appeal in favour of the assessee. Therefore, at present, when the addition itself has been set aside, there cannot be any case for levy of penalty for concealment of income.
In the present case, the income computed as per the normal procedure was less than the income determined by legal fiction namely book profits under Section 115JB of the Act.
CIT Vs Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd (Delhi High Court)- When the assessee accepts the excess depreciation claimed inadvertently and the same being disallowed by the AO, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted in such a case.
Renu Hingorani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – The AO had not questioned the actual consideration received by the assessee but the addition was made purely on the basis of the deeming provisions of s. 50C. The AO had not doubted the agreement or given any finding that the actual sale consideration was more than the sale consideration stated in the sale agreement. The fact that the assessee agreed to the addition is not conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per agreement was incorrect and wrong. Accordingly, there was no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
We find that the A.O., CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal has only interpreted the provisions of sec. 80-IA(9) and Sec. 80HHC in a different way. As held by their Lordship, in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd (supra) that merely because the assessee has made some legal claim which has not been accepted by the A.O. that will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income of the assessee. In our opinion, there is no justification to support the A.O. for levy of the penalty on the claim of the assessee u/s 80HHC, which was not accepted. We, accordingly, delete the entire penalty by cancelling the penalty order passed by the A.O.
Delhi High Court rules on penalty under Sec 271(1)(c) in CIT Vs Nalwa Sons. Case involves tax assessment, book profits, and disallowed deductions. Read more.
If the Assessing officer or Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under the Act is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, then he can direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty u/s. 271(1) (c), a sum not less than 100% but not exceeding 300% of the amount tax sought to be evaded by reason of concealment of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income.
CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762 = (2010) 322 ITR 158. As the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not.
CIT vs Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (322 ITR 158) Supreme Court- It was held that a mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee and if the contention of the Revenue to this effect is accepted then in case
