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 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 : The Tribunal found no distinguishing factors between the assessee and another liquor trader whose GP rate of 3.13% had been accept...
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...
ITAT held that, if book profit and tax payable u/s 115JB was based on certificate issued by Chartered Accountant then it cannot be held that, assesses claim was not bonafide or it has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, penalty so levied deleted.
Where sundry creditors arising out of the purchases debited in the profit and loss account as revenue expenses, were added to income of assessee for want of the addresses of said creditors, that did not mean assessee had concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, so as to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c).
These are the appeals filed by assessee against the order of CIT(A)-16, Mumbai dated 14/08/2015 for A.Y.1997-98 and 2003-04, in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271 (1 )(c) of the IT Act.
No penalty under Sec. 27(1)(c) of the Act could have been imposed on the assessee in respect of the addition of an amount of Rs. 47,66,952/- made by the A.O towards notional income of the villa owned by the assessee at Dubai.
When penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the revenue under section 271(1)(c), the specific ground, i.e., either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof has to be spelt out in clear terms. Otherwise, an assessee would not have proper opportunity to put forth his defence. Therefore, penalty order was not sustainable in the absence of specific charge mentioned by AO.
When income of assessee was determined on estimation basis of net profit, then no penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be imposed for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars.
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.
