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...
S. 271(1)(c): If the basis on which penalty is initiated by the AO and the basis on which the quantum is confirmed on merits by the Tribunal are different, penalty cannot be levied
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has in the case of Hariom Steels Pvt Ltd has held that penalty cannot be levied when deeming provisions are applied for assessing income.
The Department further initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on ground that the assessee failed to offer explanation for making such a claim. It was noted that once the claim was rejected the onus was on the assessee to dislodge the revertible presumption of the claim of concealment of income. However, the tribunal deleted penalty by holding that merely because the claim is not accepted would not give rise to penalty proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made a legal claim in a transparent manner. Whether such a claim is acceptable or not, is altogether a different matter, it said.
Pr CIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi (Andhra Pradesh High Court) In the present case, the assessee seems to have submitted her explanation on merits without raising a doubt as to what was the precise allegation leveled against her. However, we are more concerned with the principle involved and not just the isolated case of its application […]
Where assessee, under a bona fide belief that UID kit being a part of computer claimed depreciation at 60%. Tribunal held that disallowance of claim would not result in levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
It is an well established proposition of law that being penal in nature, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are invoked only when there is evidence beyond doubt that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee towards the tax alleged to be evaded.
In the present case, the assessee has disclosed all the particulars before completion of the assessment u/s 143(3), though the details were filed in the scrutiny proceeding.
Admittedly there is a mistake committed by the assessee in not adding interest on the refund to his sources of income. There is no disputing the fact that the tax payer duly and diligently must necessarily in its return of income disclose all avenues of his income. The assessee in its defence has consistently maintained […]
Where no return was filed prior to the date of search and a return had been filed only after the issue of notice under section 153A and in respect of income offered by assessee no proper explanation was provided regarding nature and source of income, AO was justified in initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).
Notice issued under Section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. It was further observed that vagueness and ambiguity in the notice deprives the assessee of reasonable opportunity to contest the same.
