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...
Farrukhabad Investment (India) Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Agra Third Member) The Id. DR cited several reasons, which, in his opinion, justified imposition of penalty, such as,. the RBI rejecting the application for registration of NBFC; names and addresses of the depositors not available; no books of account or vouchers available; a qualification by the auditors […]
CIT Vs D. Harindran (Madras High Court) The learned Appellate Tribunal held that the respondent assessee had furnished all details of sale and purchase of the Injambakkam property and had claimed deduction under Section 54/54F of the 1961 Act. After careful perusal and analysis of Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act, the Appellate Tribunal found, […]
Where claim of deduction had came up with a complete disclosure of all the facts by way of a note to the Computation of Income (COI) filed with assessee’s Return of Income (ROI) for the year under consideration, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was called for :Novartis India case
PCIT Vs. Dhariwal Industries Ltd (Bombay High Court) Mr Tejveer Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal CIT-2 v/s Shree Gopal Housing and Plantation Corporation, Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No.701 of 2015 decided on 6th February, […]
Assessee did not disclose income voluntarily but it was disclosed in pursuance to survey conducted under section 133A. Had there not been survey, the assessee would not have offered such undisclosed income, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was correctly levied by AO.
DCIT Vs PVR Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Sah Many cases are emerging out in which it is being held that where a claim by assessee is in respect of a debatable issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Income tax Act, 1961(for short ‘the Act’) cannot be imposed. Recently, in DCIT vs. PVR […]
Deutsche Bank Ag, Mumbai vs. ADIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessing Officer has to strike off and specify the charge/limb for which he is proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c): Deutsche Bank case
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that no penalty can be initiated against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for a bonafide mistake committed on the part of the Chartered Accountant.
Pr. CIT Vs Samtel India LTD (Delhi High Court) From the facts of this case it is clear that the assessee disclosed all the particulars of his income. The AO has disallowed his claim without holding it to be bogus or false. Hence, the genuineness of the loss occurred is not at question here. The […]
As notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 did not specify particular viz., whether assessee had concealed particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, hence, levy of penalty could not be sustained.
