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...
In the present case, therefore, the assessee failed to offer any explanation in not offering a particular amount to tax. This was finding of the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Even if the speculation profit was eligible for set off against carry forward speculation loss, the same would have effect of diminishing such speculation loss which would be carry forwarded for future years. It is by now well settled through statutory provisions as well as decisions of the Apex Court in case of loss return also, the penalty could be imposed if by virtue of wrong claim not made bona fide, computation of loss is likely to reduce.
The absence of any explanation is statutorily considered as amounting to concealment of income. In the absence of any explanation regarding the receipt of the money, which is in the exclusive knowledge of the assessee, an adverse inference is sought to be drawn against the assessee under the first part of clause (A) of the said Explanation.
This was an appeal filed by the department against the penalty deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is a software company claiming deduction u/s 10B of the Act. During the quantum proceedings, the then assessing officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 10B of the Act of Rs. 31,52,432/- on the ground that the approval granted to the assessee
In this case penalty proceedings have been initiated by ld. CIT(A) pursuant to enhancement of income made by him vide his order dated 17.07.2012. The appeal against this order has been filed before the Tribunal on 4th October, 2012 which is in fact the first appeal of the assessee against the enhancement of income by ld. CIT(A). As the appellate proceedings are already on, we are not going into the merits of the case.
The hearing was closed at this stage, pronouncing the result of these appeals by the Revenue against it; it being the common contention of both the parties that the provision of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) stood attracted and satisfied in the instant case for the relevant years.
As per Explanation 7; no penalty is leviable if the assessee proves that the price charged or paid in such transaction was computed in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec. 92C and in the manner prescribed under section in good faith and with due diligence.
The difference between a write off of a debt as irrecoverable and a provision against the same on account of or for it being bad and doubtful for recovery, is not technical but factual and, further, real and not imaginary.This is more so in view of the express provision of law by way of Explanation to section 36(1)(vii), brought on statute by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 01-04-1989.
Tribunal in the penalty proceedings has by its order, independent of the findings in quantum proceedings, has reached a conclusion that various incriminating documents found during search established that the appellant’s were manipulating its accounts so as to reduce its profits. Consequently, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is imposable and has been rightly imposed by the authorities under the Act.
Merely by depositing the due tax on the amount received on termination of employment the bona fides of the assessee in not declaring the receipt as income in its return of income is not established.
In the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, Karnataka High Court has laid down the following Principles for levy of penalty Under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :- (a) Penalty under Section 271(l)(c) is a civil liability.
