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...
Assessee has not concealed anything in this regard. Therefore, it cannot be a case of concealment of facts. As far as the filing of inaccurate particulars of income is concerned, we hold that assessee was having huge carry forward losses and depreciation and the return was filed at nil income.
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is legally justified in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) inspite of the fact that the assessee did not furnish any explanation either before the Assessing officer
The legislature has intentionally drafted the provisions relating to Search and Survey in the statue book of Income Tax Act, 1961 with the target of unearthing the undisclosed income of any person in form of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing.
The respondents have not disputed this before us. It is true that the assessee had not deposited the long term capital gain in the capital gain account, and he had deposited the said amount in his savings account with Vijaya Bank.
In the case before us, the legal heir was never impleaded or brought on record. The show cause notice for penalty was not issued, as legal heir of the deceased, and therefore, it cannot be said that non-mentioning of the name of the legal heir and writing of name of the deceased at the top
Recently, Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. vs CIT (C.A.No. 9772 of 2013) has pronounced the judgment in respect of section 271(1)(c), which has again raised the vexed issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Factually, we find that the onus cast upon the assessee has been discharged by giving a cogent and reliable explanation. Therefore, if the department did not agree with the explanation, then the onus was on the department to prove that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Sometime back, I had to deal with a case of a charitable institution which is running a number of educational institutions. For one assessment year, certain donations received by the trust were disclosed as anonymous donations, as per the provisions of section 115BBC of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). As per section 115BBC(1)(i), the assessee trust paid tax on the anonymous donations at the rate of thirty per cent (30%) thereof.
Once the legislature has not specified the ‘due date’ as provided in section 139(1) in Explanation 5A, then by implication, it has to be taken as the date extended under section 139(4). In view of the above, we hold that the assessee gets the benefit / immunity under clause (b) of Explanation to section 271(1)(c) because the assessee has filed its return of income within the ‘due date’ and, therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained.
Assessee has only stated that he had surrendered the additional sum of Rs.40,74,000/- with a view to avoid litigation, buy peace and to channelize the energy and resources towards productive work and to make amicable settlement with the income tax department.
