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...
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 […]
Can an assessee who has surrendered his income in response to the specific information sought by the Assessing Officer in the course of survey, be absolved from the penal provisions under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income?
Aesthetica Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In this case nature of default committed by the assessee is not known as the inappropriate portion in the relevant column of the show cause notice has not been struck off. Consequently, the Assessing Officer himself was unsure of the category under which the default is blamed […]
It has held that difference in the level of capacity utilization is an accepted principle, though denied in the relevant AY to the respondent. The same cannot, however, tantamount to filing without good faith and due diligence.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as mere making of a claim which was not sustainable in law, by itself, would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of assessee.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as AO was not certain that for which limb he wanted to initiate penalty proceedings, that is, for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. AO initiated penalty proceedings on one footing and concluded on other footing, therefore, the basis of levy of penalty itself was not correct.
It is a settled position of law that if notice under section 274 read with 271(1)(c) is not specific about the charge or limb under which penalty is being levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, then any penalty levied on the basis of such notice is bad in law and liable to be deleted.
PCIT Vs Sonu Realtors Private Limited (Bombay High Court) Wrong deduction claimed which resulted in reduction of Tax liability can’t amount to concealment of income Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) filed the appeal being aggrieved against Order dated July 20, 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in which the order of Appellant […]
Action Construction Equipment Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Assessing Officer has not given any reason as to why he dropped the penalty in Assessment Year 2010-11 and sustained the imposition of penalty for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 under the same set of facts. Moreover, in the impugned penalty order, the Assessing Officer has stated […]
Examining the present case on the anvil of aforesaid case law, we find that the notice in this also is an omnibus show-cause notice as it does not strike off/delete the inappropriate/irrelevant/not applicable portion. Such a generic notice betrays a non-application of mind. Hence, the penalty levied pursuant to such a notice is not legally sustainable in law.
