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...
A.O. applied the deeming provisions of Section 50C of the I.T. Act, for the purpose of making the addition. Thus, the A. O. did not bring any positive evidence on record to show that assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished any inaccurate particulars.
Swift Knit Pvt.Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Only arguments raised by the ld.counsel for the assessee is that, it was an inadvertent and bona fide mistake while filing the return. Question before us is, how such mistake was committed and how it could be termed as an inadvertent or bona fide mistake. In the case […]
Jain Studios Ltd. & Anr. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Mere making of a claim which had not been accepted, would not per se tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars to attract penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Bare perusal of explanation furnished by the assessee went to prove that it had come up […]
M/s Inspectorate Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs ADIT (ITAT Delhi) Assessee was under the belief that due to the ‘make available’ Clause in Article 12 (4) (b) of India Singapore DTAA, the consideration paid by the Indian customers to assessee cannot be regarded as ‘fees for technical services’ and further since there was no transfer of technology […]
Recently, in Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA No.6680/Mum/2012 with ITA No.5553/Mum/2014 and ITA No.5479/Mum/2015, A.Y.: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13, decided on 26.07.2018], briefly stated, the assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of pharmaceuticals products filed its return of income for A.Y. 2005-06 on 31.10.2005
Assessee-company engaged in business of letting out of immovable property, had claimed benefit of section 54. AO found that assessee, being a company was not entitled to claim deduction under section 54; thus, he initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, assessee contended that penalty was not imposable, only on account of having made an ineligible claim.
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 application made by an assessee, may grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A (not being penalty for misreporting) and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, subject to the conditions specified therein.
As neither the assessment order nor the show cause notice stated the specific charge of alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income vis-a-vis addition made by AO, entire penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were vitiated.
Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds of the same, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error.
Challenging the order,dated 18/12/2015,of the CIT(A)-28 Mumbai the Assessing Officer (AO)has filed the present appeal.Assessee-firm,a builder and developer,filed its return of income on 25/09/2010,declaring total income of Rs.6.29 crores.The AO completed the assessment on 23/12/2011,determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.7.40 crores.
