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 : Transfer of passive infrastructure (PI) assets under a court-approved scheme of demerger without consideration qualified as a gift...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when identical facts in earlier years led to deletion. ...
Income Tax : Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In , the ITAT Bangalore deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that me...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that penalty proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer does not specify whether the charge is concealment ...
Income Tax : The issue was whether incorrect tax treatment amounts to concealment. The Tribunal held that mere wrong classification in books do...
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...
DCIT, Kolkata Vs Sushma Devi Agarwal (ITAT Kolkata)- Assessee has failed to establish that disclosure of additional income in the revised return by way of declaring G. P. rate at 15% as against 6.93% shown in return filed u/s. 153A of the Act was voluntary and in good faith to buy peace with the department. On the other hand, the assessee filed the revised return only after the concealment was detected by the AO and he confronted the assessee with the same. In such circumstances, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Ps.14,61,678/- for concealment of income has rightly been levied by the A.O.
Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- In our considered opinion, the stand taken by the assessee at the time of filing of return of income was a possible and plausible view and therefore, the penalty is not justified. The judgement of Honourable Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. reported in 327 ITR 158 also supports the case of the assessee because in that case, it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that mere making of a claim by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee and such a claim made in the return of income cannot amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unless it is found that any details supplied by the assessee in this return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. In our considered opinion, this judgement of Honourable Apex Court supports the case of the assessee in the present case and respectfully following this judgement, we delete the penalty.
CIT Vs Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd (Delhi High Court)- When the assessee accepts the excess depreciation claimed inadvertently and the same being disallowed by the AO, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted in such a case.
Sanjay S. Shah Vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- The fact that the assessee got credit of TDS u/s 154 proceedings in fact goes against the assessee. When the assessee received TDS in respect of some FDRs, and not in respect of other FDRs as claimed by him, he should have obtained the duplicate certificates and should have filed them with the return of income showing total interest received by him. Instead, he chose not to show the interest income to the extent of Rs.2,11,172/-.
No penalty can be levied under s 271(1)(c) when there was only the CBDT Circular on the taxation of ESOP shares and where the assessee offered certain income in a particular year and paid taxes bona fidely and the AO taxed the same in another year.
Shri Pankaj Rathi Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court) – It is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under Section 271 (1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise.
In this appeal preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) assailing the order dated 13-2-2009 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “B”, New Delhi (for short ‘the tribunal’) in ITA No. 2299/Del/2007 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02 the revenue has raised the following substantial question of law.
Senthamarai Constructions v CIT (High Court of Madras) – Assessee filed the revised return in respect of the first two assessment years and filed the return for the first time for the last of the assessment year only after search in the Managing Partner’s residence, wherein undisclosed cash and investments were found. The conduct of the assessee, hence, assumes significance in coming forward to disclose the income of the firm, which are relatable to the investments made by the Managing Partner.
Facts (a) that the appellant had disclosed all material facts and (b) raising a legal claim, even if it is ultimately found to be legally unacceptable, cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income,
ACIT vs M/s Seaways Shipping Ltd. (ITAT) (ITAT Hyderabad) – Non deduction of TDS by the assessee was resulted in disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a) (ia), that itself cannot be construed as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The assessee has failed to deduct TDS which resulted in disallowance of expenditure; the mistake committed by the assessee was compensated by disallowing the expenditure. Further, the Revenue cannot penalise the assessee by levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In order to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, there has to be concealment of particulars of income of the assessee or the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.
