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...
PCIT Vs. Dhariwal Industries Ltd (Bombay High Court) Mr Tejveer Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal CIT-2 v/s Shree Gopal Housing and Plantation Corporation, Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal No.701 of 2015 decided on 6th February, […]
Assessee did not disclose income voluntarily but it was disclosed in pursuance to survey conducted under section 133A. Had there not been survey, the assessee would not have offered such undisclosed income, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was correctly levied by AO.
DCIT Vs PVR Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Sah Many cases are emerging out in which it is being held that where a claim by assessee is in respect of a debatable issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Income tax Act, 1961(for short ‘the Act’) cannot be imposed. Recently, in DCIT vs. PVR […]
Deutsche Bank Ag, Mumbai vs. ADIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Mumbai)- Assessing Officer has to strike off and specify the charge/limb for which he is proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c): Deutsche Bank case
The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has held that no penalty can be initiated against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for a bonafide mistake committed on the part of the Chartered Accountant.
Pr. CIT Vs Samtel India LTD (Delhi High Court) From the facts of this case it is clear that the assessee disclosed all the particulars of his income. The AO has disallowed his claim without holding it to be bogus or false. Hence, the genuineness of the loss occurred is not at question here. The […]
As notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 did not specify particular viz., whether assessee had concealed particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars thereof, hence, levy of penalty could not be sustained.
A.O. applied the deeming provisions of Section 50C of the I.T. Act, for the purpose of making the addition. Thus, the A. O. did not bring any positive evidence on record to show that assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished any inaccurate particulars.
Swift Knit Pvt.Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Only arguments raised by the ld.counsel for the assessee is that, it was an inadvertent and bona fide mistake while filing the return. Question before us is, how such mistake was committed and how it could be termed as an inadvertent or bona fide mistake. In the case […]
Jain Studios Ltd. & Anr. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Mere making of a claim which had not been accepted, would not per se tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars to attract penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Bare perusal of explanation furnished by the assessee went to prove that it had come up […]
