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...
Merely because assessee’s had claimed administrative expenditure which was not acceptable to Revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) if there was absence of concealment and / or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
AO was not justified in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) on assessee without specifying the grounds in the penalty notice as the same could not be construed as a mere technical error
Sanraj Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified, where both the assessment order and show cause notice failed to state the specific charge of concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by assessee. FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.20 […]
RBM Pati Joint Venture Vs DDIT (ITAT Delhi) An insight over the penalty order, we find that the penalty was initiated on account of loss claimed by the appellant on sale of assets, even though, that particular block of assets had not been exhausted. We do not find any justification to discard the findings reached […]
M. Suresh Company Pvt Ltd Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) 1. This Motion is taken by the appellant assessee in Income Tax Appeal No. 738 of 2016. The appeal arises out of a judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming penalty against the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. […]
The relevant clauses of AS-7, applicable Guidance Notes, the fact that the accounts were duly audited and the disclosures made in the audit notes, the loss income as declared, small taxable income as assessed even after the additions were made and that the expenses as claimed were otherwise eligible and allowed in the next assessment year, we would accept that the assessee had shown that they had acted bona fidely. Thus, the assessee should not have been burdened with penalty for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Time limit for levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) after Commissioner Appeal order Recently, my friend made me a panic call as he received a notice for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act after the commissioner (A) has dismissed quantum appeal and the assessee has further filed the appeal before the Honorable […]
DCIT Vs Dr. Ravindra Babasaheb Kadam (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present ground is with respect to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that additional income of Rs.1.49 crores was offered by the assessee during the course of survey conducted on 12.01.2012. It is also a fact […]
Shri Suresh Shivlal Bhasin Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) As regards imposition of penalty on the addition made on account of notional house property income, it goes without saying that in reality the assessee has not earned any income from house property. The Assessing Officer himself has observed that the addition made on account of income […]
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be levied as assessee had proved that there was a reasonable cause for making the wrong claim under section 54 instead of section 54F.
