Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when errors are voluntarily corrected during assessment. ...
Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unsustainable as 54F exemption failed due to builder delay, not taxpayer’s fault. Full dis...
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 : Learn how taxpayers can defer income tax penalty proceedings when quantum additions are under appeal. Understand legal grounds and...
Income Tax : The Committee recommends that the scope of Section 273B should be suitably enlarged to provide that penalty for concealment of inc...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years was not permissible where alleged escaped income was only ₹38 lakh. Since sta...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty was not justified where all relevant facts were disclosed in the return of income, audit report, an...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a penalty after finding that the show-cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb of Sect...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that unsecured loan additions could not be sustained where the assessee furnished confirmations, bank statemen...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT held that a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot survive without the Assessing Officer recor...
Income Tax : 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...
Vikram Kalra Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It is the case of the assessee that the provisions of Section 54F are beneficial in nature and the Courts have always accorded liberal interpretation and a small delay of few days have been condoned for the eligibility purposes. Even otherwise, in these circumstances, the imposition of penalty on […]
ITAT held that non mentioning of relevant limb or non striking off of irrelevant limb in penalty notice is a substantive defect in imitation of proceedings itself and consequent penalty levied on the basis of such defective notice can not be sustained.
ITAT held that mere disallowance of depreciation would not lead to imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) , more particularly where quantum disallowance of depreciation itself is highly debatable
Agarwal Packers & Movers Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Merely because if a claim is rejected by Assessing Officer, would not ipso facto made the assessee liable for penalty Now, coming to the penalty confirmed in respect of addition sustained on account of disallowance of claim of depreciation. One of the averments of the assessee […]
SLV Housing Development Corporation Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) Under Section 271(1)(c), two faults or omissions exposes the assessee to concealment penalty i.e. concealment of particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. The assessee has admitted before the AO that the new auditor appointed, had pointed out certain mistakes in the expenses claimed […]
Where additions have been deleted by Tribunal in quantum proceedings, penalty under section 271(1c) levied by AO not sustainable
In this case AO has considered the full value consideration U/s 50C as against the actual sale consideration declared by the assessee. The increased of value by the AO in the full value consideration does not amount either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Pranav Kumar Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by both the sides and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal is with respect to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the present appeal, the show cause notice dated 27.11.2017 […]
Pradeep Sugamchand Kawadiya Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The short point involved in this case as to whether the penalty is sustainable when the same has been initiated and levied without specifying the alleged guilt committed by the assessee either for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Brief facts leading to this […]
In our considered opinion, additions which are mere estimated additions do not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and it is not a fit case of levy of penalty.
