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 a penalty notice lacking clarity on whether it relates to concealment or inaccurate particulars is invalid....
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 : 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...
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.
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Durgapur dated 31-3-2015 for assessment year 2010-11 in respect of upholding the penalty of Rs. 3,01,031 imposed by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
CIT Vs M/s. L & T Finance Ltd (Bombay High Court) In none of these orders there is any whisper of the alleged particulars of income which has been concealed or what particulars of income which have been filed is inaccurate. Mere using the words that there has concealment of income and / or furnishing inaccurate […]
A issue being a debatable issue at the point of time when the assessee filed its return of income penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on that count cannot be sustained, mere fact that the addition has been made or confirmed does not per se lead to imposition of penalty
The appellant contented that penalty under section 271(1)(b) can be imposed by the AO if he is satisfied that any person failed to comply with the notice under section 142(1) or under section 143(2) or directions issued under section 142(2A) of the Act. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(b) for non compliance of notice issued under section 148.
ITAT held that, if book profit and tax payable u/s 115JB was based on certificate issued by Chartered Accountant then it cannot be held that, assesses claim was not bonafide or it has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, penalty so levied deleted.
Where sundry creditors arising out of the purchases debited in the profit and loss account as revenue expenses, were added to income of assessee for want of the addresses of said creditors, that did not mean assessee had concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, so as to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c).
These are the appeals filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-16, Mumbai dated 14/08/2015 for A.Y.1997-98 and 2003-04, in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271 (1 )(c) of the IT Act.
No penalty under Sec. 27(1)(c) of the Act could have been imposed on the assessee in respect of the addition of an amount of Rs. 47,66,952/- made by the A.O towards notional income of the villa owned by the assessee at Dubai.
When penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the revenue under section 271(1)(c), the specific ground, i.e., either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof has to be spelt out in clear terms. Otherwise, an assessee would not have proper opportunity to put forth his defence. Therefore, penalty order was not sustainable in the absence of specific charge mentioned by AO.
