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...
In the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of even date, both the limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act are reproduced in the proforma notice and the irrelevant clause has not been struck-off
Where Assessing Officer issued two notices for imposition of penalty namely, one u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and second u/s 274 r.w.s 271AAA in cases where search u/s 132 of the Act has been initiated, then such notices issued by AO are untenable in law.
Mere defect in the notice u/s 274 do not vitiates the penalty proceedings and no prejudice was caused to the assessee by non- marking of appropriate clause. Addition for Bogus purchases cannot be made under Section 69C as ‘unexplained expenditure’ if purchase are duly disclosed and payments are made through banking channels. The fact that the sellers are not traceable and the assessee surrendered the bogus purchases does not justify levy of penalty.
Apex Court in MAK Data P. Ltd., v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax 358 ITR 593, that voluntary disclosure itself does not release the assessee from penal consequences.
To our mind, in the instant case, what has emerged is that the Assessee, having realised that the expenditure claimed towards travelling under Section 57 of the Act was not tenable, offered the amounts expended to be added to her income and, accordingly, paid the requisite tax and interest upon the same. In our opinion, this was not a case, where, the Assessee could be said to have either concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars of her income.
Aforesaid appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30th December 2015, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)– 53, Mumbai, confirming penalty imposed of Rs. 2,57,246, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) for the assessment year 2011-12.
It upheld the view of the Tribunal that the imposition of penalty was not justified as admission of appeal in quantum proceeding on this issue as substantial question of law was proof enough of the issue being debatable.
These four appeals by the revenue, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, (“the Act”) are directed against four separate orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench) (“ITAT”) for AY 2005-06 and 2006- 07. The following common question of law was framed for decision by this court
In this case the bonus was determined after finalisation of accounts in the month of September 2009. The same related to income for the period ended 31st March 2009. The company which is the employer of the assessee did not deduct TDS of the said income till filing of income tax return by the assessee.
The addition has been made invoking the deeming provisions of section 50c of the Act. There is no finding that the actual sale consideration is more than that mentioned in the sale agreement.
