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...
Brijesh Jaikishin Rupani Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai held that The income offered by assessee in income filed pursuant to issue of notice under section 153A was the income detected during the course of search and seizure operation. The case of assessee was squarely covered by provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), because […]
Jefferris India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) When there was no willful concealment and mistake involved human error, penalty under section 271(1)(c ) deleted
Through this article an attempt has been made to explain the circumstances where the revisionary powers of the commissioners u/s 263 can be invoked when the order dropping penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed by the Assessing Officer. In the case of M/s. DEF, an India Company, an order was […]
Merely because assessee’s had claimed administrative expenditure which was not acceptable to Revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) if there was absence of concealment and / or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
AO was not justified in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) on assessee without specifying the grounds in the penalty notice as the same could not be construed as a mere technical error
Sanraj Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified, where both the assessment order and show cause notice failed to state the specific charge of concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by assessee. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.20 […]
RBM Pati Joint Venture Vs DDIT (ITAT Delhi) An insight over the penalty order, we find that the penalty was initiated on account of loss claimed by the appellant on sale of assets, even though, that particular block of assets had not been exhausted. We do not find any justification to discard the findings reached […]
M. Suresh Company Pvt Ltd Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) 1. This Motion is taken by the appellant assessee in Income Tax Appeal No. 738 of 2016. The appeal arises out of a judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming penalty against the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. […]
The relevant clauses of AS-7, applicable Guidance Notes, the fact that the accounts were duly audited and the disclosures made in the audit notes, the loss income as declared, small taxable income as assessed even after the additions were made and that the expenses as claimed were otherwise eligible and allowed in the next assessment year, we would accept that the assessee had shown that they had acted bona fidely. Thus, the assessee should not have been burdened with penalty for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Time limit for levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) after Commissioner Appeal order Recently, my friend made me a panic call as he received a notice for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act after the commissioner (A) has dismissed quantum appeal and the assessee has further filed the appeal before the Honorable […]
