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...
Pr. CIT Vs Prakash Mangilal Jain (Bombay High Court) Following FIFO or LIFO method cannot be the basis for levying penalty as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In order to justify the levy of penalty, two factors must co-exist, (i) there must be some material or circumstances leading to the reasonable […]
Where no satisfaction had been recorded by the AO for initiation of penalty in the assessment order the same cannot invite the assessee to penalty under section 271(1)(c)
Issuing of show cause notice in a template-like manner cannot be challenged on basis that it was not clear as to whether the same had been issued for concealing particulars of income’ or furnishing of inaccurate particulars’ of such income merely by reason of mistake or defect i.e., mistake or defect of issuing it in a template and not scoring of the relevant ground and leaving out the applicable ground.
Shri Harish Chand Narang Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) The sum and substance of above decision is that the nature of specification of charge by the A.O. at the stage of initiation of penalty proceedings at the time of issue of notice U/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and at the time of […]
Pr. CIT Vs Sterlite Opportunities and Ventures Ltd. (Bombay High Court) revised return filed under Section 139(5) of the Act, was valid return of income filed by the Respondent on its own and not on the basis of any investigation/ discovery done by the department of inaccurate particulars in the original return of income. Thus, […]
DCIT (E) Vs Baroda Cricket Association (ITAT Ahmedabad) Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India provides certain protection in this regard which states that no person can be convicted for any offence except for a violation of a law in force at the time of action charged an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty […]
Zaheer Abdulhamid Mulani Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The sanctity in terms of natural justice with regard to this proposition is that the assessee under the scheme of welfare legislation which is embedded in the Income Tax Act, 1961 should get an opportunity to prepare himself for the defense as regards to the exact charge on which […]
The dispute between the Assessee and the Revenue was with reference to actual payment for purchase of the flat and whether when the Assessee had purchased one more flat, though contagious, could the Assessee claim exemption under Section 54F of the Act.
In the present case at the very inception notice initiating penalty is not in accordance with mandates of law. Moreover, it is settled position of law that such defect is not curable u/s 292BB of the Act. Therefore, we hereby quash the penalty order.
Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds on which the same was imposed, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error.
