section 271(1)(c)

Penalties and 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

Prosecutions and Punishment under Income-Tax Act, 1961

Income Tax - Apart from penalty for various defaults, the Income-tax Act also contains provisions for launching prosecution proceedings against the taxpayers for various offences. In this part you can gain knowledge about the various provisions relating to prosecution which can be launched under the Income-tax Act....

Read More

All about Income Tax Offences liable to prosecution

Income Tax - Apart from levy of penalty for various defaults by the taxpayer, the Income-tax Law also contains provisions for launching prosecution for offences committed by the taxpayer. In this part you can gain knowledge about offences in respect of which prosecutions can be launched under the Income-tax Law. For provisions relating to punishment c...

Read More

Power of Commissioner to Reduce or Waive Income Tax Penalty

Income Tax - In the tutorial 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...

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

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

No Penalty for withdrawal of higher depreciation claim during assessment

Waman Hari Pethe Sons (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) - Where assessee had claimed depreciation on building at revalued figures and later on withdrawn the excess depreciation during the course of assessment proceedings to buy peace, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was invalid because mere making of wrong claim would not automatically l...

Read More

ITAT restrained revenue from passing Penalty order till disposal of Appeal

Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) - Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) So far as the penalty proceedings are concerned, the assessee has made out a prima facie case in favour of the assessee proving that the outcome of the appeal before ITAT will directly impact the proceedings which are hurriedly being finalized by th...

Read More

Sushmita Sen gets relief from ITAT in Income Tax penalty case

Sushmita Sen Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) - Sushmita Sen recent appeal: Where the assessee made certain claim which had not been accepted by the Revenue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) thereon deleted...

Read More

S. 241(1)(c) Penalty cannot be imposed for merely for Rejection of Registration by RBI

Farrukhabad Investment (India) Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Agra) - Farrukhabad Investment (India) Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Agra Third Member) The Id. DR cited several reasons, which, in his opinion, justified imposition of penalty, such as,. the RBI rejecting the application for registration of NBFC; names and addresses of the depositors not available; no books of account...

Read More

Making of a statutory claim U/s. 54/54F cannot be said to be concealment of particulars of income

CIT Vs D. Harindran (Madras High Court) - CIT Vs D. Harindran (Madras High Court)  The learned Appellate Tribunal held that the respondent assessee had furnished all details of sale and purchase of the Injambakkam property and had claimed deduction under Section 54/54F of the 1961 Act. After careful perusal and analysis of Section 271(1)(c...

Read More

Immunity under Section 270AA of Income-tax Act, 1961- CBDT Clarifies

Circular No 5/2018-Income Tax - (16/08/2018) - Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) inter alia provides that w.e.f. 1 st April, 2017, the Assessing Officer, on an application made by an assessee, may grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A (not being penalty for misreporting) and initiation of proceedings unde...

Read More

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

No Penalty for withdrawal of higher depreciation claim during assessment

Waman Hari Pethe Sons (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Where assessee had claimed depreciation on building at revalued figures and later on withdrawn the excess depreciation during the course of assessment proceedings to buy peace, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was invalid because mere making of wrong claim would not automatically lead to an inference of furnishing inaccu...

Read More

ITAT restrained revenue from passing Penalty order till disposal of Appeal

Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) So far as the penalty proceedings are concerned, the assessee has made out a prima facie case in favour of the assessee proving that the outcome of the appeal before ITAT will directly impact the proceedings which are hurriedly being finalized by the authorities below, which may […...

Read More

Sushmita Sen gets relief from ITAT in Income Tax penalty case

Sushmita Sen Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Sushmita Sen recent appeal: Where the assessee made certain claim which had not been accepted by the Revenue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) thereon deleted...

Read More

S. 241(1)(c) Penalty cannot be imposed for merely for Rejection of Registration by RBI

Farrukhabad Investment (India) Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Agra)

Farrukhabad Investment (India) Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Agra Third Member) The Id. DR cited several reasons, which, in his opinion, justified imposition of penalty, such as,. the RBI rejecting the application for registration of NBFC; names and addresses of the depositors not available; no books of account or vouchers available; a qualification ...

Read More

Making of a statutory claim U/s. 54/54F cannot be said to be concealment of particulars of income

CIT Vs D. Harindran (Madras High Court)

CIT Vs D. Harindran (Madras High Court)  The learned Appellate Tribunal held that the respondent assessee had furnished all details of sale and purchase of the Injambakkam property and had claimed deduction under Section 54/54F of the 1961 Act. After careful perusal and analysis of Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act, the Appellate Tribuna...

Read More

No Penalty when Assessee disclosed all facts in COI filed with ROI

ACIT Vs. M/s Novartis India Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)

Where claim of deduction had came up with a complete disclosure of all the facts by way of a note to the Computation of Income (COI) filed with assessee’s Return of Income (ROI) for the year under consideration, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was called for :Novartis India case...

Read More

Penalty cannot be levied if claim was as per judicial precedents

Pr. CIT Vs Dhariwal Industries Ltd (Bombay High Court)

PCIT Vs. Dhariwal Industries Ltd (Bombay High Court) Mr Tejveer Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal CIT-2 v/s Shree Gopal Housing and Plantation Corporation, Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No.701 of 2015 decided on 6th February, [&helli...

Read More

Bona fide mistake should be demonstrated with Circumstantial Evidence

Swift Knit Pvt.Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)

Swift Knit Pvt.Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Only arguments raised by the ld.counsel for the assessee is that, it was an inadvertent and bona fide mistake while filing the return. Question before us is, how such mistake was committed and how it could be termed as an inadvertent or bona fide mistake. In the case […]...

Read More

Where issue is a debatable legal issue, penalty U/s. 271(1)(c ) not leviable: PVR case

DCIT Vs PVR Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

DCIT Vs PVR Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Sah Many cases are emerging out in which it is being held that where a claim by assessee is in respect of a debatable issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Income tax Act, 1961(for short ‘the Act’) cannot be imposed. Recently, in DCIT vs. PVR […]...

Read More

AO has to strike off & specify the limb to initiate penalty proceedings

Deutsche Bank AG, Mumbai vs. ADIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Mumbai)

Deutsche Bank Ag, Mumbai vs. ADIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessing Officer has to strike off and specify the charge/limb for which he is proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c): Deutsche Bank case...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,935)
Company Law (4,146)
Custom Duty (7,117)
DGFT (3,789)
Excise Duty (4,171)
Fema / RBI (3,549)
Finance (3,750)
Income Tax (28,354)
SEBI (2,988)
Service Tax (3,413)

Featured Posts

Search Posts by Date

December 2018
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31