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...
Understanding the penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the income tax Act, 1961 when income is determined by AO through estimation.
Raghuram Garikapati Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.10,46,957/- pertaining to quantum addition arising from treatment of rental income (as to whether it came under the head ‘income from house property’ or ‘income from […]
Elite Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) As regards penalty order, firstly, the correct limb was not struck off or rather indicated by the Assessing Officer in the notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and hence the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in case of M/s Sahara India Life Insurance […]
RBJ Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) We are of the view that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T Act levied by AO has no legs to stand at present, when the corresponding additions made by the AO have already been deleted by ITAT vide its aforesaid order dated 22.12.2020 when the aforesaid quantum addition […]
Glory Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It is an admitted fact that before levy of the penalty A.O. has issued show cause notice Dated 20.06.2014 in all the years in which A.O. has mentioned both the limbs of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act that assessee have concealed the particulars of your income […]
Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. has held that no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act can be imposed when income is determined on estimate basis.
Aagam Shares & Commodities Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is also well settled that penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act will not be imposed in every case merely because it is lawful to do so. The penalty will not ordinarily to be imposed unless the party obliged, either acted deliberately in defiance […]
PCIT Vs Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Tribunal was required to consider, was: whether penalty could be imposed on the assessee only because it had made a new claim [in line with the change in its accounting policy] in its fresh return? Admittedly, [and there is no dispute about it] AS-7 permitted […]
Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble High Court was referred an issue ‘mere failure to tick mark the applicable grounds’ in the notice issued under Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) vitiate the entire penalty […]
ACIT Vs IKEA Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) We find that the assessee has sold assets at the WDV of the assets as per company law whereas the TPO held that the assessee ought to have sold the assets at the value of the WDV of the block of assets as per the Income […]
