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...
Assessee provided details of deposits and source from where the deposits have been made in the bank account. Only the relevant parties were not presented to establish the genuineness of the transaction and the same cannot lead to concealment.
Making of incorrect claim in law would not by itself amount to concealment of income or giving inaccurate particulars of income. Since revenue had not been able to show even remotely that there was any concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income, appeal was to be dismissed.
An excess claim of depreciation by an assessee for bonafide reasons would not justify imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) had also been deliberated upon by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom.)
For invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, satisfaction of the concerned income tax authority is must that any person has:- Either concealed particulars of his income OR Furnished inaccurate particulars of such income and such satisfaction must be arrived at in the course of any proceeding under the Act. Satisfaction […]
Armoury International Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case, the assessee was observed to have made bogus purchases as per information received from the Sales Tax Department. The assessee was issued notice u/s. 148 on 11.03.2013 served on 12.03.2013. The assessee filed revised return of income on 15.03.2013, wherein the amount of bogus purchase was offered […]
Prabhudas Liladhar P. Ltd. Case: Once The Whole Basis Of Addition Itself As Made By The AO In Quantum Has Been Deleted By The Tribunal And Expenses Were Related To The Business Penalty Levied By The AO Under Section 271(1)(c) Deleted
M/s OSE Infrastructure Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) When the revised return is accepted and the income is assessed as per the revised income, there is no scope for penalty. In the case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel vs ACIT, (2017) 80 Taxmann.com 162 (Guj), the Hon’ble High Court held that in view of specific provision of Section […]
CIT Vs Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. (High Court Madras) n order to get over the legal embargo which permitted such expense to be allowable as a deduction, the Income Tax Act was amended and Section 35DDA was introduced by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f 01.04.2001. Thus, in our considered view, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside […]
Taking into account the amount mentioned in Form 26AS it could not be said that the assessee had concealed amount or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. However, penalty was restricted to the tax sought to be evaded on the amount of commission income not disclosed by assessee.
Merely disallowance of any claim which is legally not allowable, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied when there was no concealment of any material facts or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
