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...
No penalty initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961was justified for disallowance made under normal provisions when assessee was assessed under MAT provisions.
Merely because the assessee complies with the statutory procedural requirement of filing the prescribed form and certificate of the Chartered Accountant, cannot absolve the assessee of its liability if the act or attempt in claiming the deduction was not bonafide.
The assessee company is engaged in the business of construction work. The Assessing Officer applied provisions of section 145 of the Act and computed the total income at 5% of turnover and levied penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act.
The assessee filed a return cf income claiming deductions under section 18(1)(b) of the Act. The deductions were disallowed. The Assessing officer, also directed initiation cf penalty proceedings, under Sections 271(1)(c) cf the Act.
The penalty in the instant case stands levied in the sum of Rs.2,41,858/-, i.e., at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, in view of Explanation (4) to section 271(1)(c). The entire enhancement in assessment having been absorbed against brought forward (unabsorbed) business losses
Briefly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The respondent-assessee is a company engaged in manufacture of hosiery goods at Ludhiana.
Addition u/s 68 of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer when the assessee himself offered to include this amount in his total income and consented to pay the tax. Another addition of Rs. 1 lakh was also made when the assessee voluntarily preferred to include Rs. 1 lakh to his total income.
Issue – Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in holding that the wrong claim made by the assessee is not filing of inaccurate particulars, ignoring the fact that the assessee has knowingly claimed the setting off of loss against other source
Issue raised by the assessee was debatable and capable of two views. The assessee had an arguable case or had taken a bonafide plea. The assessee had given his explanation and categorically and clearly stated the true and full facts in the return itself. He did not try to camouflage
Merely because a claim (per the return of income) is a legal claim, or has a legal aspect to it – which would be in each case – the same by itself cannot be a cause for non levy of penalty in every case, as where there is no valid basis for the same (i.e., the legal claim).
