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...
It is well settled that the parameters of judging the justification for addition made in the assessment case of the assessee is different from the penalty imposed on account of concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income and that certain disallowance/addition could legally be made in the assessment
Income Tax law provides an exhaustive, encyclopedic and compendious machinery to deal with the issues of what can be conceived and what can be believed with regard to the jurisprudence of taxing the subject as a whole. In this profitable and solvent venture of taxing the subject through the route of his due filings with the respective authorities and agencies designated and deputed by the government
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills Vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.) has held that quantum proceedings are different from penal proceedings. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT Vs. P.K. Narayanan (1999) 238 ITR 905 (Ker.) has held that despite the addition being confirmed by Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty can still be deleted by the Tribunal, if the facts justify.
The assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are two separate and distinct proceedings. The fact that certain additions were made in the assessment proceedings would not automatically justify for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
In the case of Asst Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dhariwal Industries Ltd, Hon’ble ITAT has held that once issue on which penalty u/s 271 (1)(C)levied involves substantial question of law, then, no penalty is leviable.
Prima-facie, according to the provisions of section 194C r.w. definition given of “work” under the explanation to section 194C, the case of the assessee has to be accepted that assessee could be under bonafide belief for non-deduction of tax from the type of payments upon which it has been held that assessee is liable to deduct tax at source.
High Court Calcutta held in CIT Vs Balampur Chini Mills Pvt Ltd that even if the assesse had voluntary disclosed its income by filing revised ROI though not detected by the revenue during scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3), penalty u/s 272(1)(c) would be levied.
In the case of Pooja Industries vs. ITO, ITAT Chandigarh held that mere denial of deduction u/s 80IC, which the assessee has claimed on roller flour mills with a bonafide belief, would not lead to panel consequences.
In the case of Radha Nutirents Ltd. Vs. ITO the Hon’ble ITAT held that the assesse has failed to provide the loan confirmation of the loan received from Shri Kathirase Kumar and was also unable to provide an explanation as to why such confirmation could not be filed.
Whether the Tribunal was right in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of the inflation of purchase which was actually detected only when the assessment was subjected to audit under section 142(2A) as not a valid and correct ground?
