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 issue as to whether there was concealment of particulars of income on the part of the assessee so as to attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) depends on the acceptability of the explanation of the assessee that the mistake in this regard was inadvertent due to his ignorance of Indian Income-tax law, hence there was bona fide reason for the same.
Agility Logistics (P.) Ltd. V/s. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Mere addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment cannot automatically lead to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c)
RL is a tax resident of Mauritius and in support of this, tax residency certificate has been furnished. This fact has also been accepted by the learned DR in the written submission. It is also undisputed fact that, based on this tax residency certificate, the RL has applied for exemption certificate for grant of 100% DIT relief, which was granted by the Assessing Officer vide certificate dated 9-6-2000 upto the period of 31-3-2001 i.e. upto AY 2001-2002 (copy of which has been placed in the assessee’s paper book at page 5 filed on 8-11-2009). It was based on this certificate, that the assessee had sought tax relief in the return of income.
We do not think that such can be the interpretation of the concerned words. The words are plain and simple. In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In the case under consideration it stands established that the issue resulting in the determination of higher income u/s 143(3) was clearly debatable. Respectfully following the ratio of the above judgments which have held that penalty is not imposable on debatable issues or claims/deductions disallowed on account of varying legal interpretations it is held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not imposable in the present case. Accordingly the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 29.01.2009 imposing the penalty of Rs. 520969/- is quashed.
In any case, expert advice obtained by the assessee from Vakharia & Associates lacks credibility and just because the assessee’s claim is supported by a chartered accountant’s opinion, this fact per se cannot absolve the assessee from penalty under section 271(1)(c). In the case of CIT Vs Escort Finance Limited (328 ITR 44), Hon’ble Delhi High Court has rejected assessee’s reliance on expert advice to avoid the penalty
The assessee is an individual who is the Managing Director of Cadence Design Systems India Pvt.Ltd. For the AY 2004-05, he filed a return of income at `1,75,05,081/- comprising of salary income at `1,02,72,400/- from Cadence Design Systems India Pvt.Ltd. and salary income of `65,97,305/- from Cadence Design System Inc.,USA. The assessee has been granted stock option under an incentive stock option agreement dated17th September, 1993with Cadence Design Systems,USA. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold the stock options and received the sum of `11,36,829/- on sale of such stock options. The same was declared as long term capital gain. The Assessing Officer assessed the same as short term capital gain and also levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) thereon at `2,50,102/- being the difference between the tax as short term capital gain and tax as long term capital gain on the sum of `11,36,829/-. The learned CIT(A) cancelled the penalty. Hence, the Revenue is in appeal.
Chimanlal Manilal Patel Vs. ACIT The AO has not disputed the consideration received by the assessee. The addition has been made on the basis of deeming provisions of section 50C. The assessee has furnished all the facts of sale, documents! material before the AO. The AO has not doubted the genuineness of the documents/details furnished by the assessee. Only because the assessee agreed to the additions because of the deeming provisions it cannot be construed to be filing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. The assessee agreed to addition on the basis of valuation made by the stamp valuation authority cannot be a conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per the sale agreement is seemed to be incorrect and wrong. In view of these facts we are of the considered view that penalty cannot be levied on the basis of deeming provision.
While scrutinizing the balance sheet of the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has taken loan of Rs. 3,57,428/- from M/s. Third Eye Qualitative Researchers Pvt. Ltd. of which she is a director having substantial interest. Accordingly, the said loan of Rs. 3,57,428/- was added as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act. The AO sought explanation u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-1. The assessee furnished detailed reply dt. 6.3.2009. The explanation of the assessee was rejected by AO who levied minimum penalty of Rs. 1,20,310/-.
The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A) was challenged by the assessee before the ITAT in an appeal. The ITAT has decided the said appeal in favour of the assessee. Therefore, at present, when the addition itself has been set aside, there cannot be any case for levy of penalty for concealment of income.
It is observed that the assessee capitalized the expenses in relation to Cafeteria project as capital work in progress in earlier year. Such project did not take off and eventually the assessee claimed it as a business loss in the current year. It is clearly borne out from records that the assessee claimed deduction by disclosing complete particulars in this regard. Simply because the assessee did not succeed in the first appeal on this issue, it does not mean that penalty will be automatic.
