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 Tribunal held that lack of awareness of the assessment order and limited knowledge of tax law constituted sufficient cause for...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that a penalty notice lacking clarity on whether it relates to concealment or inaccurate particulars is invalid....
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 : 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 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.
Since we have held that the penalty proceedings are liable to be quashed on the reasoning that there was non-application of mind on the part of the AO while issuing notice to the assessee, we do not find it necessary to address the arguments urged on merits.
In all these appeals preferred by the assessee, the action of the Learned CIT(Appeals) in sustaining the penalty levied under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at Rs.8,53,281 in assessment year 2006-07, Rs.73,54,710 in assessment year 2007-08, Rs.6,81 ,61 5 in assessment year 2008-09, Rs.49,48,020 in assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.10,56,756 in assessment year 2010-11 has been questioned.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on the addition made by ld. Assessing Officer but when the basis i.e. quantum addition has itself been deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench,
These Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenge a common order dated 11th October, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The common impugned order deleted the penalty imposed upon the Respondent Assessee for the Assessment Years 200304, 200405, 200506 and 2006-07.
Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case?
Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) not leviable where there is complete absence of recording of any finding that assessee had indulged in any concealment of any material particulars or that explanation offered by him was not bonafide or was false
Hon’ble Delhi ITAT held that Penalty can be imposed only on disproved claim of expenditure and not unproved claim of expenditure.
Tribunal noted that the respondent had claimed the set off of its business income of Rs. 1.85 crores against the brought forward business losses of the earlier years on the basis of a legal opinion received from a leading firm of Chartered Accountants dated 15.06.2001.
