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 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 : The Tribunal found no distinguishing factors between the assessee and another liquor trader whose GP rate of 3.13% had been accept...
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...
Vibracoustic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. IT (ITAT Delhi) The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted, where the Assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different […]
Jhodinda Bhojpura Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) It is well-settled that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct and as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananthraman Veera singhaiah & Co.Vs. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457, the finding in the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as […]
Mayur Batra Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Petitioner states that before levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c), the replies of the petitioner filed on 17th December, 2021 and reiterated as well as uploaded on 22nd and 27th January, 2022 were not considered by the respondents. He further states that the petitioner has not been granted […]
CIT (International Taxation) Vs Gracemac Corporation (Delhi High Court) This Court is in agreement with the opinion of the Tribunal that Section 271(1)(c) penalty can only be levied in such cases where concealment of income has been proven. If the quantum order itself has been set aside in an appeal preferred by the respondent/assessee, there […]
Joison Kundu Kulam Johny Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee submitted that his case was mishandled by one Mr. Nagesh Shastry, Income Tax Practitioner, who has been indulging in claim of fraudulent refunds by fictitious claim of deductions, which was unearthed by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. It was submitted that without the […]
Statement of survey without any corroborative material cannot be the sole reason for addition to income. In this view of the matter, when the addition itself is on such a weak footing, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for such an addition is not at all sustainable.
It is to be noted that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic. If assessee offers reasonable explanation, then, penalty cannot be imposed.
Kanshi Ram through Legal heir Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) On perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act we observe that the notice issued was stereotyped and the Assessing officer has not specified any limb or charge for which the notice was issued i.e., either for […]
Assessee having disclosed all particulars of his income from sale of agricultural land, having furnished a bonafide explanation for not returning the same to tax and having surrendered the said income suomoto before detection by the Revenue, assessee cannot be said to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c.
Vijay D. Patel Vs CIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is clear that post amendment to section 271(1)(c) w.e.f. 1-4-2002 authorizing the commissioner also initiate penalty u/s 271(1)(c), the CIT still cannot direct the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings while exercising his revisionary power u/s. 263 of the act. The decision of the Jurisdictional High Court […]
