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 : Tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years was not permissible where alleged escaped income was only ₹38 lakh. Since sta...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty was not justified where all relevant facts were disclosed in the return of income, audit report, an...
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 : 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...
These are appeals by the Assessee against three orders all dated 13.06.2016 of C.I.T.(A)-I, Kolkata relating to A.Y. 2006-07 to 2008-09.
The ITAT bench comprising of Accountant Member T. S. Kapoor and Judicial Member Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not attract when assessee makes an Ineligible Claim.
The Kolkata bench of ITAT recently held that penalty cannot be levied since show cause notice issued in the present case under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Assessee is not absolved of penalty because the additional income has been declared to buy peace. It must follow therefore that the above strategy (buy peace) by itself will not justify imposition of penalty, unless the requirement of the section under which the penalty is imposed are satisfied.
. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not attracted in cases where income of the assessee is assessed on an estimate basis and addition is made on that basis. Even if the assessee is not able to substantiate the explanation, but his explanation is not lacking bona fide, and, therefore, we are of the view that it is not a fit where vigour of provisions of section 27 1(1) is attracted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench, on Wednesday furnished an order which ensure that tax payers are not charged penalty for unspecified reasons.
Nowhere in the assessment order states the specific charge of alleged concealment and / or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the entire penalty proceedings stand vitiated, because it is not in accordance with law.
Sri Sachindra Nath Kayal Vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) It undisputed fact that assessee has earned LTCG which was not offered to tax. It is also undisputed that the disclosure of the same made in balance-sheet of the assessee. Thus, we note that non- offering of LTCG to the tax was not deliberate. It was out […]
The requirement to obtain previous approval of the IAC is mandatory as it is to safeguard the interests of the assessee against arbitrary exercise of power by the AO.
DCIT Vs. Sh.Vipan Guppta Prop. (ITAT Chandigarh) We find no infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in deleting the penalty levied following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s Hycron Electronics Vs. ITO in ITA No. 326/Chd/2015 relating to assessment year 2009-10. On perusal of the said order we find that […]
