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...
The action of the lower authorities in not following the case laws on the issue and in spite of legal precedents, still not quashing the penalty of Rs. 2,22,240/- is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, illusory and against the facts of the case and thus deserves to be deleted.
Principal CIT Vs M/s. Shree Gopal Housing (Bombay High Court) Admission of an appeal in quantum proceedings, if arising on a pure interpretation of law or on a claim for deduction in respect of which full disclosure has been made, may, give rise to a possible iew, that admission of appeal in the quantum proceedings […]
Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In the present case, there is admission on part of the assessee that the quantum of depreciation claim was incorrectly computed at enhanced cost. It is well settled principle that ignorance of law is not excused and cannot be a ground to avoid tax liability. The Assessee […]
Show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained.
Principal CIT Vs. Smt. Ritu Singal (Delhi High Court) In construing Section 271AAA one must not lose sight of its essential purpose which resulted in its enactment. There is a penalty at the rate of 10% of the undisclosed amount declared, if the conditions in Section 271AAA (2) are not met with. This is quite […]
The AO has imposed the penalty on the ground of disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation. The assessee cannot be fastened with the law of penalty without there being a clear specific charge. Fixing a charge should not be in a casual manner and it has not been permitted under the law.
A mere making of a wrong, though bona fide claim of depreciation, which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, such wrong claim will not automatically invite penalty under section 271(1)(c).
A division bench of the Delhi High Court, last day held that mere voluntary surrender of income without disclosing its source cannot rescue assessee from facing penal consequences under the Income Tax Act.
D.C.I.T Vs. M/s. Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) On a perusal of the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiation of proceedings we find that the Assessing Officer did not strike off and specify the charge/limb for which he is proposing to initiate penalty proceedings. However, in the Assessment Order, Assessing […]
HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Amritsar) The moot question is that what should be the nature of specification of a charge by the AO at the stage of initiation of penalty proceedings and at the time of passing the penalty order. Is the AO required to specify in the penalty notice/order as […]
