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...
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).
The assessee sold the property at a sum of Rs.2,51,50,000/- For the purpose of stamp duty, however, the value was estimated at a sum of Rs.5, 19,77,000/- and on that basis the stamp duty was realized. During the assessment, it was found that the assessee had disclosed the sale price
In the present case, admittedly, assessee made a claim but the same was rejected and disallowed not for the reason that the claim was not genuine or was fabricated but in view of provisions of law that assessee did not deduct TDS thereon.
The fact remains that the actual amount received was offered for taxation. It is only on the basis of the deemed consideration that the proceedings under s. 271(1)((c) started. The Revenue has failed to produce any iota of evidence that the assessee actually received one paise more than the amount shown to have been received by him.
