section 271(1)(c)

Penalties & Prosecutions Under Income tax Act, 1961

Income Tax - Penalties and Prosecutions Default in complying with provisions of or with conditions prescribed under the Income-tax Act would attract certain penalty and in critical cases prosecutions as well. The document will provide you information about the punishable offences, prosecutions and the quantum of penalties that can be imposed under the...

Read More

Power of Commissioner to Reduce or Waive Income Tax Penalty

Income Tax - In the Article on Penalties Under the Income-tax Act, we discussed various penalties imposable under the Income-tax Act in respect of various defaults. Apart from enacting penalty provisions, the Income-tax Act also designed provisions empowering the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax or Commissioner of Income-tax to grant relief from p...

Read More

Specified Domestic Transaction- Penalty for Concealment of Income

Income Tax - The provisions of transfer pricing are designed to keep a check on the practice of reducing the tax liability by entering into transactions at prices higher or lower than market prices with one or more associated entity...

Read More

Penalties under the Income-Tax Act, 1961

Income Tax - Under the Income-tax Act, penalties are levied for various defaults committed by the taxpayer. Some of the penalties are mandatory and a few are at the discretion of the tax authorities. In this part, you can gain knowledge about the provisions relating to various penalties leviable under the Income-tax Act....

Read More

Prosecutions and Punishment under Income-Tax Act, 1961

Income Tax - In Addition to penalty for various defaults, the Income-tax Act,1961 also contains provisions for launching prosecution proceedings against the taxpayers for various offences. This Article explains about the various provisions relating to prosecution which can be launched under the Income-tax Act,...

Read More

Easwar Committee Recommends Non-Levy Of Penalty in certain circumstances

Income Tax - The Committee recommends that the scope of Section 273B should be suitably enlarged to provide that penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof will not be imposed where any addition or disallowance is made without any evidence or in a routine manner or on estimate and in cases where the Assessing Office...

Read More

Income disclosure under fear of penalty or other proceedings cannot be termed voluntary

Dy. CIT Vs. Mukesh Kalubhai Prajapati (ITAT Ahemdabad) - A disclosure made under the fear of a plausible penalty or other proceedings cannot be termed voluntary or made in good faith. Mere request for non-initiation of penalty on the ground of disclosure branding the same to be voluntary with a view to buy peace and avoid litigation will not take the asse...

Read More

No Penalty for Bonafide Mistake in original Return which was revised later

Shri Laxminarayan S. Yadav Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai) - Assessing Officer that the actual investment made in the new residential house is Rs. 20 lakh, but, he has also filed a revised computation of income on 20th November 2012, offering taxable long term capital gain at a higher figure of Rs. 24,98,488. It is also a fact on record that the Assessing Off...

Read More

ITAT deletes penalty on Failure of AO to mention specific limb of section 271(1)(c); Penalty cannot be imposed for mere valuation difference

Shah Virchand Govanji Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT-Valsad (ITAT Surat) - Penalty U/s. 271(c) Addition for difference on account of method of valuation of Closing Stock without any intention to to conceal income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income not justified...

Read More

Mere claim for rebate would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars: Madras High Court

Gopalratnam Santha Mosur Vs Income Tax Officer (Madras High Court) - Gopalratnam Santha Mosur Vs ITO (Madras High Court) The petitioner was the co-owner of the immovable property situated in Tamil Nadu and she had sold the property and paid the entire capital gain tax applicable in respect of the transaction. The petitioner thereafter claimed 50% of the capital gains...

Read More

Section 271(1)(c) Penalty cannot be imposed in absence of Disallowance

Indermal Manaji Vs CIT (Bombay High Court) - It is abundantly clear that the very basis of the penalty proceedings was set aside by the Tri­bunal in an appeal against the assessment order. There was no addition of income. On the contrary, the case of the assessee, which was negated by the assessing officer of carrying on the business of draft...

Read More
Sorry No Post Found

section 271(1)(c)’s Popular Posts

Recent Posts in "section 271(1)(c)"

Income disclosure under fear of penalty or other proceedings cannot be termed voluntary

Dy. CIT Vs. Mukesh Kalubhai Prajapati (ITAT Ahemdabad)

A disclosure made under the fear of a plausible penalty or other proceedings cannot be termed voluntary or made in good faith. Mere request for non-initiation of penalty on the ground of disclosure branding the same to be voluntary with a view to buy peace and avoid litigation will not take the assessee out of the scope and ambit of Expla...

Read More

No Penalty for Bonafide Mistake in original Return which was revised later

Shri Laxminarayan S. Yadav Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai)

Assessing Officer that the actual investment made in the new residential house is Rs. 20 lakh, but, he has also filed a revised computation of income on 20th November 2012, offering taxable long term capital gain at a higher figure of Rs. 24,98,488. It is also a fact on record that the Assessing Officer has accepted the income shown in th...

Read More

ITAT deletes penalty on Failure of AO to mention specific limb of section 271(1)(c); Penalty cannot be imposed for mere valuation difference

Shah Virchand Govanji Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT-Valsad (ITAT Surat)

Penalty U/s. 271(c) Addition for difference on account of method of valuation of Closing Stock without any intention to to conceal income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income not justified...

Read More

Mere claim for rebate would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars: Madras High Court

Gopalratnam Santha Mosur Vs Income Tax Officer (Madras High Court)

Gopalratnam Santha Mosur Vs ITO (Madras High Court) The petitioner was the co-owner of the immovable property situated in Tamil Nadu and she had sold the property and paid the entire capital gain tax applicable in respect of the transaction. The petitioner thereafter claimed 50% of the capital gains tax as rebate under Indo-Canadian DTAA....

Read More

Section 271(1)(c) Penalty cannot be imposed in absence of Disallowance

Indermal Manaji Vs CIT (Bombay High Court)

It is abundantly clear that the very basis of the penalty proceedings was set aside by the Tri­bunal in an appeal against the assessment order. There was no addition of income. On the contrary, the case of the assessee, which was negated by the assessing officer of carrying on the business of draft discounting, is accepted by the Tribuna...

Read More

S. 271(1)(c) Penalty notice without specifying which of two limbs are being put-up is invalid

Orbit Enterprises Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

The captioned two appeals by the assessee relating to Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 involve a common issue, therefore, they have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity....

Read More

Mere non-allowability of claim not sufficient to impose penalty U/s. 271(1)(c)

DCIT Vs. Parinay Organizers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahemdabad)

In an appeal before Ahmedabad ITAT, DCIT vs. Parinay Organizers Pvt. Ltd., one of the grounds raised was that whether on the facts of the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied by the AO on account of dis allowances of interest expenses of Rs. 44,19,194/- without considering the merits of the c...

Read More

No penalty for Bona fide belief that capital loss was not required to be considered U/s. 10(38)

DIT Vs. Nomura India Investment Fund (Bombay High Court)

DIT Vs. Nomura India Investment Fund (Bombay High Court) Provisions of section 271(1)(c) can only be invoked upon satisfaction of the ingredients as laid down in the said section. In the present case, it appears that the assessee had disclosed in its return the loss of Rs. 80.64 Crores sustained by him and further in the return, note was ...

Read More

Deletion of Penalty in case of Bonafide belief supported by Factual Circumstances & Decision

DCIT Vs American Express India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

Deletion Of Penalty In Case Of Bonafide Belief Of An Assessee: Especially When The Action Of Assessee Is Supported By Factual Circumstances And A Decision- Section 271 (1)( c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with the penalty in respect of failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc....

Read More

No Penalty for claim which was allowed at one Stage and disallowed later on

DCIT Vs American Express India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

If a claim made by the assessee has been allowed at one stage and later on has been disallowed, ostensibly, the assessee can said to have some bona fide belief for making such a claim. ...

Read More
Page 1 of 3112345...102030...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,524)
Company Law (3,466)
Custom Duty (6,674)
DGFT (3,501)
Excise Duty (4,051)
Fema / RBI (3,292)
Finance (3,501)
Income Tax (25,347)
SEBI (2,758)
Service Tax (3,288)

Search Posts by Date

November 2017
M T W T F S S
« Oct    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930