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...
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.
Merely because a notice u/s 143(2) had already been issued and the assessee filed revised return thereafter, disclosing additional income towards capital gains, which was not correctly shown in the original return, does not tantamount to detection of concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act .
Hon’ble Delhi ITAT has in the case of M/s. Fortune Ploymers Industries Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT, has held that Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on an un-detailed assessment order passed in a cursory and summary manner .
The fact of actual sale consideration received by the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer but the addition was made simply by applying the deeming provisions of section 50C. Therefore, in view of the various decisions as relied upon by the Ld. Authorized Representative as well as by the CIT(A), we do not find any error in the impugned order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c).
when the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has admitted substantial question of law on the addition, it becomes apparent that the addition so made has become debatable. The penalty was imposed on the basis of addition so made, therefore, when the addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed has become doubtful/debatable, therefore, penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot survive.
The dictum laid down in case of Rubber Udyog Vikas (P) Ltd. is that incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars unless it is established that assesee has acted with malafide intention.
