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 : Tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years was not permissible where alleged escaped income was only ₹38 lakh. Since sta...
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 : 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...
Shri Harish Chand Narang Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) The sum and substance of above decision is that the nature of specification of charge by the A.O. at the stage of initiation of penalty proceedings at the time of issue of notice U/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and at the time of […]
Pr. CIT Vs Sterlite Opportunities and Ventures Ltd. (Bombay High Court) revised return filed under Section 139(5) of the Act, was valid return of income filed by the Respondent on its own and not on the basis of any investigation/ discovery done by the department of inaccurate particulars in the original return of income. Thus, […]
DCIT (E) Vs Baroda Cricket Association (ITAT Ahmedabad) Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India provides certain protection in this regard which states that no person can be convicted for any offence except for a violation of a law in force at the time of action charged an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty […]
Zaheer Abdulhamid Mulani Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The sanctity in terms of natural justice with regard to this proposition is that the assessee under the scheme of welfare legislation which is embedded in the Income Tax Act, 1961 should get an opportunity to prepare himself for the defense as regards to the exact charge on which […]
The dispute between the Assessee and the Revenue was with reference to actual payment for purchase of the flat and whether when the Assessee had purchased one more flat, though contagious, could the Assessee claim exemption under Section 54F of the Act.
In the present case at the very inception notice initiating penalty is not in accordance with mandates of law. Moreover, it is settled position of law that such defect is not curable u/s 292BB of the Act. Therefore, we hereby quash the penalty order.
Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds on which the same was imposed, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error.
Brijesh Jaikishin Rupani Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT Mumbai held that The income offered by assessee in income filed pursuant to issue of notice under section 153A was the income detected during the course of search and seizure operation. The case of assessee was squarely covered by provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c), because […]
Jefferris India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) When there was no willful concealment and mistake involved human error, penalty under section 271(1)(c ) deleted
Through this article an attempt has been made to explain the circumstances where the revisionary powers of the commissioners u/s 263 can be invoked when the order dropping penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed by the Assessing Officer. In the case of M/s. DEF, an India Company, an order was […]
