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...
CIT Vs Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. (High Court Madras) n order to get over the legal embargo which permitted such expense to be allowable as a deduction, the Income Tax Act was amended and Section 35DDA was introduced by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f 01.04.2001. Thus, in our considered view, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside […]
Taking into account the amount mentioned in Form 26AS it could not be said that the assessee had concealed amount or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. However, penalty was restricted to the tax sought to be evaded on the amount of commission income not disclosed by assessee.
Merely disallowance of any claim which is legally not allowable, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied when there was no concealment of any material facts or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Smt Joyti Sunil Maniyar Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) In the notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 11.10.2011 a specific query was raised by the AO about the capital gain income. After that, the assessee vide reply dated 22.11.2011 conceded the fact of non-disclosing the capital gain income. From the above, it is transpired that the assessee […]
Where assessee had already paid income-tax on the amount surrendered during the course of survey, it could not be said that the surrendered income was not voluntary and the assessee wanted to conceal the income, therefore, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
Jeetmal Choraria Vs. ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) From the aforesaid discussion it can be seen that the line of reasoning of the Honorable Bombay High Court and the Honorable Patna High Court is that issuance of notice is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to levy penalty in order to enable him […]
Where assessee had claimed depreciation on building at revalued figures and later on withdrawn the excess depreciation during the course of assessment proceedings to buy peace, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was invalid because mere making of wrong claim would not automatically lead to an inference of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.
Assessee had declared additional incomes when AO confronted with details of Form No. 26AS , it could not be said that declaration of income by assessee was voluntary, therefore, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of concealment was justified, especially in view of the fact that similar income had been earned and duly offered to tax during earlier years also.
Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) So far as the penalty proceedings are concerned, the assessee has made out a prima facie case in favour of the assessee proving that the outcome of the appeal before ITAT will directly impact the proceedings which are hurriedly being finalized by the authorities below, which may […]
Sushmita Sen recent appeal: Where the assessee made certain claim which had not been accepted by the Revenue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) thereon deleted
