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...
Penalty U/s. 271(c) Addition for difference on account of method of valuation of Closing Stock without any intention to to conceal income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income not justified
In an appeal before Ahmedabad ITAT, DCIT vs. Parinay Organizers Pvt. Ltd., one of the grounds raised was that whether on the facts of the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied by the AO on account of dis allowances of interest expenses of Rs. 44,19,194/- without considering the merits of the case.
DIT Vs. Nomura India Investment Fund (Bombay High Court) Provisions of section 271(1)(c) can only be invoked upon satisfaction of the ingredients as laid down in the said section. In the present case, it appears that the assessee had disclosed in its return the loss of Rs. 80.64 Crores sustained by him and further in the return, note was also given that it reserves its right to carry forward the loss.
Deletion Of Penalty In Case Of Bonafide Belief Of An Assessee: Especially When The Action Of Assessee Is Supported By Factual Circumstances And A Decision- Section 271 (1)( c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with the penalty in respect of failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.
If a claim made by the assessee has been allowed at one stage and later on has been disallowed, ostensibly, the assessee can said to have some bona fide belief for making such a claim.
CIT Vs. Smt. Madhuri Satish Misal (Bombay High Court) Amount which has been subjected to levy of penalty primarily on the ground that the assessee agreed to the addition and did not challenge it in appeal. The Tribunal in paras 19 to 21 of its order considered the principles which have to be invoked and […]
Deferral of depreciation allowance does not result into any concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has held while setting aside the penalty imposed on eminent lawyer Harish Salve for alleged concealment of income as it said his tax payments running into crores show his intention to be tax compliant.
In the present case also the income returned by the assessee under section 153A of the Act has been accepted by the assessing officer and once the assessing officer accepts the revised return filed under section 153A of the Act, the original return under section 139 of the Act abates and becomes non-est. Therefore, in […]
Where specific charge for the levy of penalty was not mentioned in the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) and there was vagueness in the recording of satisfaction, the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed.
In this Question arose for consideration was whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 could be levied in respect of an addition not having been made in quantum/assessment proceedings and it was held that Imposition of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is strictly circumscribed to addition which has been made/confirmed in the […]
