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

Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) invalid if Not specifically mentioned in assessment order as to which limb penalty was imposed

ABR Auto (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) - As neither the assessment order nor the show cause notice stated the specific charge of alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income vis-a-vis addition made by AO, entire penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were vitiated....

Read More

No Penalty for non compliance of section 148 notice

Shri Chouth Mal Sharma Vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur) - The appellant contented that penalty under section 271(1)(b) can be imposed by the AO if he is satisfied that any person failed to comply with the notice under section 142(1) or under section 143(2) or directions issued under section 142(2A) of the Act. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under sect...

Read More

No penalty on disallowance of Deduction U/s. 54B claimed under a bona fide belief

Nitinkumar Desai Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) - Where assessee after, investing capital gain in purchase of new agricultural land within prescribed time, harbored a bona fide belief that there was not any tax liability of capital gain and substantiated his explanation with relevant evidence, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unjus...

Read More

S. 271(1)(c) Notice issued by AO without specifying grounds of penalty is not valid

Alcatel-Lucent India Ltd. v. ACIT ( ITAT Delhi) - Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds of the same, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error....

Read More

No Penalty for Offering income under capital gain instead of Business head under bonafide impression

ACIT Vs M/s. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (ITAT Mumbai) - Challenging the order,dated 18/12/2015,of the CIT(A)-28 Mumbai the Assessing Officer (AO)has filed the present appeal.Assessee-firm,a builder and developer,filed its return of income on 25/09/2010,declaring total income of Rs.6.29 crores.The AO completed the assessment on 23/12/2011,determining the...

Read More
Sorry No Post Found

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

Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) invalid if Not specifically mentioned in assessment order as to which limb penalty was imposed

ABR Auto (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

As neither the assessment order nor the show cause notice stated the specific charge of alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income vis-a-vis addition made by AO, entire penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were vitiated....

Read More

No Penalty for non compliance of section 148 notice

Shri Chouth Mal Sharma Vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

The appellant contented that penalty under section 271(1)(b) can be imposed by the AO if he is satisfied that any person failed to comply with the notice under section 142(1) or under section 143(2) or directions issued under section 142(2A) of the Act. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(b) for non compliance of noti...

Read More

No penalty on disallowance of Deduction U/s. 54B claimed under a bona fide belief

Nitinkumar Desai Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

Where assessee after, investing capital gain in purchase of new agricultural land within prescribed time, harbored a bona fide belief that there was not any tax liability of capital gain and substantiated his explanation with relevant evidence, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unjustified....

Read More

S. 271(1)(c) Notice issued by AO without specifying grounds of penalty is not valid

Alcatel-Lucent India Ltd. v. ACIT ( ITAT Delhi)

Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds of the same, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error....

Read More

No Penalty for Offering income under capital gain instead of Business head under bonafide impression

ACIT Vs M/s. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (ITAT Mumbai)

Challenging the order,dated 18/12/2015,of the CIT(A)-28 Mumbai the Assessing Officer (AO)has filed the present appeal.Assessee-firm,a builder and developer,filed its return of income on 25/09/2010,declaring total income of Rs.6.29 crores.The AO completed the assessment on 23/12/2011,determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.7.40...

Read More

Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied if AO did not specify grounds on which penalty was imposed

Associated Trading Vs. ITO ( ITAT Kolkata)

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Durgapur dated 31-3-2015 for assessment year 2010-11 in respect of upholding the penalty of Rs. 3,01,031 imposed by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)....

Read More

Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed unless same been particularized

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s. L & T Finance Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

CIT Vs M/s. L & T Finance Ltd (Bombay High Court) In none of these orders there is any whisper of the alleged particulars of income which has been concealed or what particulars of  income which have been filed is inaccurate. Mere using the words that there has concealment of income and / or furnishing inaccurate […]...

Read More

Mere wrong claim of depreciation would not invite penalty U/s. 271(1)(c)

Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs Asstt. CIT (Rajasthan High Court)

A mere making of a wrong, though bona fide claim of depreciation, which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, such wrong claim will not automatically invite penalty under section 271(1)(c)....

Read More

Mere fact that addition has been made or confirmed does not per se lead to imposition of penalty

Giesecke and Devrient [I] Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

A issue being a debatable issue at the point of time when the assessee filed its return of income penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on that count cannot be sustained, mere fact that the addition has been made or confirmed does not per se lead to imposition of penalty...

Read More

Claim though ineligible in law but based on CA certificate does not amounts to making false claim

Naturence Cosmetic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

ITAT held that, if book profit and tax payable u/s 115JB was based on certificate issued by Chartered Accountant then it cannot be held that, assesses claim was not bonafide or it has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, penalty so levied deleted....

Read More
Page 1 of 3812345...102030...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,750)
Company Law (3,883)
Custom Duty (6,955)
DGFT (3,686)
Excise Duty (4,144)
Fema / RBI (3,479)
Finance (3,670)
Income Tax (27,501)
SEBI (2,899)
Service Tax (3,370)

Search Posts by Date

July 2018
M T W T F S S
« Jun    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031