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 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?
Since basis for visiting assessee with penalty has been extinguished by quashing assessment order itself by Tribunal in appeal of assessee, impugned penalty imposed further had no leg to stand.
Where assessee surrendered unexplained income voluntarily even after receiving notice u/s 143(2) and the AO had not brought any evidence on record to prove that there was concealment of income, whether levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified.
It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee had not incurred the expenditure claimed or that the claim of expenditure was bogus or incorrect. The disallowance of expenditure was attracted due to non-deduction of TDS and it cannot be said to be a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Hon’ble High Court held that making of an incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income when Assessee has made full disclosure of relevant Facts and of Claim Made as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158.
Budget 2015- Amount of tax sought to be evaded for the purposes of penalty for concealment of income under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 271 Under the existing provision contained in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Act penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income […]
The AO is empowered to assess or reassess the total income of the Assessee by reopening the Assessment, invoking the provisions of section 148 of the Act. The authors have visualized in-depth manifestation with respect to the jurisdiction of the AO in reopening the Assessments of the ‘Companies’ where even after the reopening the ultimate tax liability of that company remains the same as per the (1) return of income, (2) Assessment u/s 143(3) and (3) Assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act.
The only issue arising in the instant appeal is the maintainability or otherwise in law, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, of the deletion of the penalty levied u/s.271AAA of the Act by the ld. CIT(A) vide his impugned order, which is in fact a combined order for A.Ys. 2004-05, 2008-09 and 2009-10.
In the instant case, the revised return of income was filed within the time prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act. Even though the assessed filed the revised return of income after the receipt of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, yet the admitted fact remains that the assessing officer did not seek any type of particulars in that notice.
