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...
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.
In the case of ITO vs. M/s Besto Tradelink (P) Ltd ITAT Ahemdabad) – Assessing Officer has computed the other disallowances of interest amount and the one under section 40A(3) only on the basis of assessee’s accurate particulars already submitted on record in the course of scrutiny.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied only in the cases of concealment of income in the return of income filed by the assessee. In the present case, the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A was accepted by the AO as it is which also included surrendered income not disclosed in the original return due to bonafide error.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of Nirmal Kumar Bardia vs. DCIT that argument of the assessee that the assessee had disclosed salary received from RMC Gems Thai Co. Ltd., Bangkok voluntarily has not substantiated with any evidence.
In the case Shri B L Dasraj Urs Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Bangalore ITAT held that show cause notice u/s 274 is defective if it does not spell out the grounds on which penalty is sought to be imposed.
