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 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 : The assessee argued that payment of advance tax demonstrated absence of concealment. The High Court held that a subsequent conscio...
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...
The AO has imposed the penalty on the ground of disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation. The assessee cannot be fastened with the law of penalty without there being a clear specific charge. Fixing a charge should not be in a casual manner and it has not been permitted under the law.
A mere making of a wrong, though bona fide claim of depreciation, which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, such wrong claim will not automatically invite penalty under section 271(1)(c).
A division bench of the Delhi High Court, last day held that mere voluntary surrender of income without disclosing its source cannot rescue assessee from facing penal consequences under the Income Tax Act.
D.C.I.T Vs. M/s. Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) On a perusal of the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiation of proceedings we find that the Assessing Officer did not strike off and specify the charge/limb for which he is proposing to initiate penalty proceedings. However, in the Assessment Order, Assessing […]
HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Amritsar) The moot question is that what should be the nature of specification of a charge by the AO at the stage of initiation of penalty proceedings and at the time of passing the penalty order. Is the AO required to specify in the penalty notice/order as […]
It is apparent that when the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the impugned transaction before the Assessing Officer that it decided to surrender an amount of Rs. 55 lakh. Thus, the factual matrix indicates that the assessee made the surrender when it had no explanation to offer. Thus, the assessee could not prove the bona fide of its claim.
Where AO failed to record his satisfaction in the assessment order as to under which limb, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was initiated against assessee, being essential condition was not fulfilled, penalty was liable to be deleted.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be levied where AO was not sure about the charge on which penalty was to be levied since he had initiated penalty proceedings for both the charges, i.e., furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealment of particulars of income, and also levied the penalty on both the charges vide his penalty order.
Mere making of claim, which was not sustainable in law, by itself, did not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars, unless mens rea was established, therefore, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
Where assessee after, investing capital gain in purchase of new agricultural land within prescribed time, harbored a bona fide belief that there was not any tax liability of capital gain and substantiated his explanation with relevant evidence, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unjustified.
