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 lack of awareness of the assessment order and limited knowledge of tax law constituted sufficient cause for...
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 : 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...
Centaur Mercantile P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is undisputed that the assessee has booked bogus purchases thereby inflating work-in-progress. Hence, it is clear that the assessee was owner of undisclosed income during the year. It was because of the system of accounting followed by the assessee being percentage completion method, that there was […]
Estate of Late Vrajlal Mehta Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We noticed that explanation of the assessee that two bank accounts belonged to Shri Rajesh Mehta have been accepted by the search officials as well as Assessing Officer. We notice that the balance available in those bank accounts have been assessed by the learned CIT(A) only, […]
It is seen that the grounds on which the ALP determined by the assessee has been rejected are reasonably debatable. The assessee had obtained a transfer pricing study from an outside expert and the objectivity of the same was not called into question.
Balaji Motion Pictures Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee has given an explanation that keeping in view smallness of the amount being addition of Rs. 2,16,441/- and also keeping in view that the assessee had claimed a loss of more than of Rs. 9 crores in the return of income filed with the Revenue […]
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.07.2013 passed by the CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi in appeal No. 03/12-13 for the AY 1997-98 passed u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short].
Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.03.2015 without striking off the irrelevant words, the penalty proceedings show a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable.
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.
In the absence of any overt act, which disclosed conscious and material suppression, invocation of Explanation 7 to s. 271(1)(c) in a blanket manner could not only be injurious to the assessee but ultimately would be contrary to the purpose for which it was en grafted in the statute.
Merely because assessee-company had claimed deduction of expenditure without deducting TDS on interest payment, which was not accepted by Revenue, by itself, would not attract the levy of penalty.
Where show cause notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) did not specify charge against assessee as to whether it was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, levy of penalty could no be sustained.
