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...
TAT see no reason to uphold the levy of penalty in the present case U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since the basis for levy of penalty, being cancellation of registration granted to the assessee U/s 12A of the Act and as a consequence treating its surplus and corpus donation as not exempt but taxable under the Act, has been quashed by the ITAT.
Where assessee was under a bona fide belief about allowability of certain provisions and there was no suppression of facts or deliberate concealment on assessee’s part, mere disallowance by AO due to difference of opinion could not lead to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be levied for bonafide explanation furnished by assessee as assessee had not offered interest income for tax due to wrong interpretations of the provisions of the Act, not on account of deliberate concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
Omega Corrugators Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai bench has held that genuine omissions must be excluded from the levy of penalty under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We find that assessee has debited a sum of Rs.3,57,541/- towards loss on sale of motor car in its profit and […]
The provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are penal in nature and they are required to be strictly construed. These cannot be extended by way of liberal interpretation to include the cases, which otherwise, do not fall within the purview and scope of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The issue under consideration is whether remuneration paid to a partner acting in a representative capacity as karta of HUF is allowed u/s 40(b)?
Making of wrong claim due to inadvertent clerical error committed by Chartered Accountant could not be classified as furnishing of inaccurate particulars so as to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) when assessee had voluntarily filed revised computation and AO had completed assessment on the basis of details furnished by assessee.
Both assessment and the penalty order do not specify as to on which limb the AO intends to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the instant case, the assessee has offered Explanation as why the transaction of loss of security was claimed as business loss. This Explanation has not found to be false by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee substantiated the Explanation by way of filing relevant documents […]
Assessee had disclosed additional income in return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A voluntarily, hence, there could not be any penalty under Expln. 5A to section 271(1)(c) as income disclosed by assessee in pursuance to search was not based on incriminating document.
