Income Tax : Discover the implications of Income Tax Act Section 270A and penalties for under-reporting or misreporting income. Learn calculati...
Income Tax : Learn about the penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act of 1961 for various defaults and offenses. Find out the fines ...
Income Tax : Apart from penalty for various defaults, the Income-tax Act also contains provisions for launching prosecution proceedings against...
Income Tax : Apart from levy of penalty for various defaults by the taxpayer, the Income-tax Law also contains provisions for launching prosecu...
Income Tax : Arjuna, while playing on the Football Ground if, a player pushes other players or creates any obstruction then the referee whistle...
Income Tax : Delhi HC: No penalty for New Holland Tractors if assessee's contention was plausible and bona fide, provided full disclosure of fa...
Income Tax : Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad's order canceling penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Co-owner sta...
Income Tax : xplore DCIT Vs Polyplex Corp. Limited case. Learn why penalty for disallowed tax claim isn't justified. Details & key takeaways he...
Income Tax : Can penalty under Section 271(1)(c) be imposed if self-assessment tax was paid before notice u/s 148? Read the detailed analysis o...
Income Tax : Tribunal ruled that mere disallowance of expenses or enhancement of returned income does not automatically warrant the imposition ...
ITAT Jaipur in Yogendra Khandelwal Vs ACIT, mandates re-adjudication for penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) without adequate hearing.
ITAT Ahmedabad has ruled that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not applicable when an assessee doesn’t furnish inaccurate income details. This ruling was made in the case of Khanpur Vibhag Madhyamik Shala Karmchari Dhiran & Grahak Sahakari Mandali Limited Vs ACIT
ITAT Mumbai held that recording of satisfaction for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not sustained.
Balwant Baburao Vitekar (Late) vs ITO (ITAT Pune) where the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was challenged. The appeal was allowed on the grounds that the assessee was not given the opportunity to assist in the penalty proceedings.
ITAT Delhi held that if a matter is restored to AO for passing a rectification order, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act does not survive. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the penalty order.
ITAT Delhi’s verdict in the case of Gawar Constructions Co. Vs DCIT, illuminating the importance of clear particulars in the imposition of tax penalties. Understand how discrepancies between the initial ‘satisfaction’ and the grounds for penalty can lead to quashing of penalty orders.
ITAT, held that if assessee voluntarily declares income during a survey and later includes it in their regular income tax return, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed.
ITAT Pune held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act duly leviable in case the additional income is disclosed in ITR filed u/s 153A and such additional income is originated out of seized material.
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as addition made on account of meager amount and on account of difference of opinion only.
ITAT Delhi deletes penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income/filing inaccurate particulars in Babita Khurana vs DCIT case. Detailed analysis and ruling provided.
