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 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 : ITAT Mumbai remanded ₹95.81 lakh commission disallowance, holding that non-response to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justi...
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...
The assessment u/s 143(3) made disallowing to excess claim of depreciation. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated on disallowance of excess depreciation claimed. The assessee confronted this fact, He is agree to disallow excess depreciation. No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is levied upon the assessee. The Department can not presume that the assessee has concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars income in the return of income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in Sohan Builders Vs ACIT that if the AO had assessed the income of the assessee at some higher percentage than what the assessee had already shown in the computation then it would not amount to the concealment of income,
The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Ruchi Developers vs. ITO, where Assessee has failed to produce creditor parties in respect of alleged Bogus Purchases while he submitted all other details and evidences and additions been made,
In the case of M/s Kantilal Siyaram vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad), the assessee has claimed that advance tax was paid, which was not recorded in the original return on the income which was remained to be disclosed in original return.
In the case of M/s Blessing Construction vs. ITO The Ahmedabad Tribunal has held Merely because the Assessing Officer or the ITAT did not consider the evidences to be sufficient for the purpose of explaining the cash credit u/s 68, it will not automatically lead to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Smt. Sumitra Devi Agarwal Vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)- The AO has questioned the genuineness of the liability and in absence of the requisite confirmation, has held the same to be a bogus liability. Where the liability itself has been held to be a bogus liability, where is the question of remission or cessation thereof.
In the case of Bhavya Anant Udeshi Vs ITO (International Taxation) it was held by ITAT Hyderabad that provision of section 50C being a deeming provision, it cannot be used for the purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) unless it is proved that Assessee has received any amount over
In the case of Ms. Chaurasia & Sons. Vs. I.T.O the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that mere confirmation of addition will not lead to conclusion that penalty is leviable, unless it is established that assessee has concealed its income.
JCIT vs. Cybertech Systems & Software P. Ltd.,(ITAT Mumbai) Assesse’s claim for exemption u/s 10B was denied. A.O. also passed a penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) for raising a false claim for exemption. Tribunal found that assesse had not even challenged rejection of claim in appeal.
ITAT New Delhi held in Simran Singh Gambhir Vs DDIT International Taxation that if the assessee had disclosed the income by mistake under wrong head of income and that mistake was bonafide then the same could not be treated as an undisclosed income and penalty u/s 271(1)( C) could not be levied.
