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...
Show cause notice under section 274 not spelling out the specific ground on which penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sought to be imposed, was defective and, therefore, penalty was deleted.
Notice under section 274 of the Act should specifically state the ground mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law.
ITAT held that making of an incorrect claim by assessee which is supported by a report of Chartered Accountant cannot be hold as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted as the claim made under bonafide belief.
It was held that Once the assessment order of the AO in the quantum proceedings was altered by the CIT (A) in a significant way, the very basis of initiation of the penalty proceedings was rendered non-existent. The AO could not have thereafter continued the penalty proceedings on the basis of the same notice.
Admittedly, when the assessee was confronted with the depreciation being claimed on the property, the income from which had been returned under the head income from house property, it immediately realized its mistake of computation of total income and agreed for the addition to its total income.
The assessee submitted that at that time she was having pregnancy of 5 months and due to immense work pressure in the office she could not devote time to see the content of ITR filed by the said ‘Taxspanner’ as she did not understand the form also, hence she just signed the ITR-V and sent it to the Bangalore CPC of Income Tax Department.
Finding of the ITAT that no material was placed on record by the Assessee to demonstrate the nature of service rendered by the three companies to whom the commission was paid has been concurrently upheld by this Court.
The AO has not given his findings, for levying the penalty, for each issue separately, with respect to the satisfaction of the AO for each of the issue respectively, nor has he given a finding for each issue separately as to whether there was a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
it was held that where complete disclosure of income had been made in the return of income and head of the income undergoes a change at the hands of the Assessing Officer would not by itself justify the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1) (c).
The ITAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Goldfilled Mercantile Company vs. DCIT held that when the assessee shown lesser capital gain in its return of income under a bonafide belief of a deduction from it but paid due taxes then the assessee cannot be penalized u/s 271(1)(c) as there was no intention
