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 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 : The Tribunal found no distinguishing factors between the assessee and another liquor trader whose GP rate of 3.13% had been accept...
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...
It is a settled principle of law that where addition to assessee’s income is made on estimate basis penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed.
PCIT Vs Junjab National Bank (Delhi High Court) Merely because additions made by the Assessing Officer have been partially upheld by the CIT (A), would not confer the ground to initiate proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of imposition of penalty, unless it is found that there is concealment of material facts, or furnishing […]
Understand the penalties imposable in income tax search cases. Learn about the different types of penalties and their implications for tax compliance.
Since assessee had no intention to make a full and true disclosure of its income as it would not have filed a revised return of income showing higher income before issuance of the notice 143(2)/142(1) by AO, therefore, AO rightly held that assessee had deliberately and consciously failed to furnish full and true particulars of income and attempted to conceal income and levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was confirmed.
The assessee is one of the group companies of China based TIENS Group of Companies. The business of the assessee, is Trading/Distribution of Food Supplements and Health Care Equipments. The products dealt with by the Company are basically products manufactured at China or other places by Group concerns. Another Group Entity Tianjin Tianshi Biological Development Company Limited, incorporated at China has established a Foreign Branch Office in India.
When no money, bullion, jewellery or book entry was found at the time of search, and only evidence against the assessee is an admission of additional income made in the statement under section 132(4), whether such admission tantamount to disclosure of money, bullion, jewellery or diary and income disclosed is to be considered as concealed income or not?
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 […]
