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...
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC) and decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Escorts Finance Ltd. (2009) 226 CTR (Del) 105 wherein it was held that where facts are clearly disclosed in the return
According to decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case where addition is made on account of application of section 50C and Revenue failed to produce any evidence to the effect that assessee has actually received more amount than that shown by it on the sale of property then penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied.
During the assessment year, the assessee has sold its factory premises from which it has been showing rental income. In the computation of total income the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 1 ,34,95,220/- on the investment in three flats.
Tribunal has come to the conclusion that for the purpose of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as a result of search assessments made u /s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered. It was held that concealment of income has to be seen with reference to additional income brought to tax over and above the income returned by the assesee in response to notice issued u/s 153A
Assessee (Salman Khan) in the present case is a leading film actor who derives income from profession of acting and advertisement assignments. The returns of income for both the years under consideration i.e assessment years 2003-04 & 2004-05 were filed by him on 28-11-2003
The imposition of penalty was found not to be justified and the Appeal was allowed. As a proof that the penalty was debatable and arguable issue, the Tribunal referred to the order on Assessee’s Appeal in Quantum proceedings and the substantial questions of law which have been framed therein
Admittedly the impugned addition pertaining to the amount received by the assessee from M/s. Newell Rubbermaid Inc. has been upheld by the Tribunal. At the same time we also observed that in assessee’s appeal ITA No. 1235/2011 order vide dated 29.11.2011 (supra) the Hon’ble High Court
The Tribunal while upholding the levy of penalty had concluded that the assessee had failed to substantiate that the gift received was genuine. The plea of the assessee that the gift was received due to his financial difficulty was also negated on appreciation of material on record.
It has become a normal tendency to subject an Assessee to Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in all cases where the Assessee refrains to file an appeal, with a hope to end the nightmare which began with selection of case for scrutiny by accepting the general additions in Assessment order.
Section 271(1)(c) empowers inter alia the Assessing Officer, where he is satisfied in the course of any proceedings under the Act that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, to direct the payment of penalty. Sub-section (1B) was introduced by way of an amendment by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1 April 1989. Sub-section (1B) reads as follows
