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 : The case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of pen...
Income Tax : The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. T...
Income Tax : The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimate...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded ₹95.81 lakh commission disallowance, holding that non-response to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justi...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling cl...
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...
Agencies Rajasthan Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Jaipur) Invocation of Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 to initiate Penalty proceeding not sustainable when addition itself deleted by ITAT Brief facts of the case are that assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30-12-2017 by the AO and thus the AO made the […]
DCIT Vs Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) When the assessee had came forth with the full disclosure of all the particulars in respect of its aforesaid claim of expense, which as observed by us hereinabove had not been proved to be incorrect by the lower authorities, therefore, merely for the reason that […]
The issue under consideration is whether the cancellation of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A) is justified in law?
Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find that the assessee had claimed business promotion expenses as revenue expenditure which was sought to be treated by the ld. AO as capital expenditure. This disallowance was ultimately sustained by the Tribunal in the quantum appellate proceedings. We find that the issue in dispute was whether […]
The Bombay High Court has in its order dated 12th June, 2020 in the case of Ventura Textiles Ltd (ITA No.958/2017) has given a fresh perspective to the controversy of validity of penalty notice under section 271(1)(c). In the past the courts have held that if the show cause notice proposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) do not clearly specify whether its for furnishing inaccurate particulars or for concealment then such show cause notice and consequential proceedings are bad in law.
The issue under consideration is whether the penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) issued to the assessee who has taxed his income as per provision of section 115JB pr 115JC is justified in law?
ITAT states that under this issue the assessee has challenged the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. The payer is under obligation to deduct the tax at source and on account of failure of payer to deduct the tax at source, the penalty interest u/s 234B cannot be imposed on the payee.
Impugned penalty order passed by the AO in the name of erstwhile dissolved company is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B;
The issue under consideration is whether Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied in the case where the assessee surrendered the income voluntarily during the course of the assessment?
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is correct in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) merely because the assessee claimed expenditure under a different head of income?
