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 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 : ITAT Mumbai remanded ₹95.81 lakh commission disallowance, holding that non-response to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justi...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling cl...
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...
Mrs. Ramesh K. Patel C/o. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is come on record that the assessee has not filed even a single satisfactory documentary or oral evidence or confirmation to the satisfaction of the lower authorities so as to prove genuineness of the above two cash deposits. We therefore quoting Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment […]
It was the explanation of assessee that the legal opinion given by the Counsel that there is no capital gain on the STT paid transactions, was not accepted by AO stating that she is a promoter of a company and has a battery of legal advisors and her husband also has legal knowledge.
Jyothirmoy Yamsani Vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) In the instant case, the assessment order categorically indicates that penalty is leviable on both counts and even penalty order details the nature of default on the part of the assessee, followed by a specific conclusion that the assessee has concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Under […]
Bhavani Gems Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We have heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record including cited orders of Tribunal in assessee’s case for different years. Upon perusal of the same, we find strength in the argument of Ld. AR since the assessee’s claim for additional depreciation has been allowed in subsequent […]
ACIT Vs Krishna C. Tandon (HUF) (ITAT Mumbai) In this case penalty proceedings were initiated during quantum assessment for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee contested the same on the premises that full particulars were furnished in the return of income and there was no concealment of income and mere change of head of income […]
A disclosure made under the fear of a plausible penalty or other proceedings cannot be termed voluntary or made in good faith. Mere request for non-initiation of penalty on the ground of disclosure branding the same to be voluntary with a view to buy peace and avoid litigation will not take the assessee out of the scope and ambit of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Assessing Officer that the actual investment made in the new residential house is Rs. 20 lakh, but, he has also filed a revised computation of income on 20th November 2012, offering taxable long term capital gain at a higher figure of Rs. 24,98,488. It is also a fact on record that the Assessing Officer has accepted the income shown in the revised computation of income. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts of the present case, we are of the view that the explanation of the assessee to the effect that investment shown in new house at Rs. 25 lakh was due to a bonafide mistake is acceptable.
Gopalratnam Santha Mosur Vs ITO (Madras High Court) The petitioner was the co-owner of the immovable property situated in Tamil Nadu and she had sold the property and paid the entire capital gain tax applicable in respect of the transaction. The petitioner thereafter claimed 50% of the capital gains tax as rebate under Indo-Canadian DTAA. […]
It is abundantly clear that the very basis of the penalty proceedings was set aside by the Tribunal in an appeal against the assessment order. There was no addition of income. On the contrary, the case of the assessee, which was negated by the assessing officer of carrying on the business of draft discounting, is accepted by the Tribunal. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would not arise.
The captioned two appeals by the assessee relating to Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 involve a common issue, therefore, they have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.
