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 : SC examined nature of amounts received from an AOP and upheld findings that receipts constituted profit share rather than revenue ...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi ruled that where an assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation under Section 50C, the Assessing Officer should refer th...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that amortization of BOT road project expenditure must be computed based on the actual concession period and not ...
Income Tax : The Chennai ITAT held that deductions approved by DSIR under Section 35(2AB) cannot be disallowed merely on the basis of survey st...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that the search authorisation under Section 132 was invalid because the satisfaction note lacked releva...
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...
Since the assessee disclosed additional income consequent to the search and seizure proceedings, the A.O. and the CIT(A) were correct in levying penalty.
Delhi High Court Ruling: If the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bonafide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act [CIT vs. Zoom Communications Private Limited (2010-TIOL-361-HC-DEL-IT)]
If the Assessing officer or Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under the Act is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, then he can direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty u/s. 271(1) (c), a sum not less than 100% but not exceeding 300% of the amount tax sought to be evaded by reason of concealment of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income.
This ruling provides guidance to taxpayers on the issue that merely making a claim in the return of income, which is disallowed by the Tax Authority, cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, which would attract levy of penalty.
CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762 = (2010) 322 ITR 158. As the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not.
CIT vs Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (322 ITR 158) Supreme Court- It was held that a mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee and if the contention of the Revenue to this effect is accepted then in case
We have heard both the sides in detail. Thrust given by the C1T(A) on the mens rea reflected in the conduct of the assessee does not survive with usual force, since the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors., 306 1TR 277.
In penalty matter under the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the case of Union of India & Others v. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Others, (2007) 295 ITR 244 the Bench of two Judges of the Supreme Court doubted the judgment of other two Judges of the Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT, (2007) (291 ITR 519); but because one Coordinate Bench (which means the Bench of the same strength of Judges) cannot over-rule the decision of another Coordinate Bench, they recommended the formation of Larger Bench to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.
“Mens Rea” literally means a guilty mind. It is a cardinal principle of English Common Law is that a persons cannot be convicted and punished in a proceeding of a criminal nature unless it can shown that he had a guilty mind. The principle is self explanatory. A person should be punished for deliberate defiance of law, rather than something which didn’t do intentionally or something which happened accidently etc. Nevertheless, the principle is most misunderstood.
CIT Vs. Indersons Leather P. Ltd. (P&H HC)- The assessee company, after discontinuing its manufacturing business, leased out its shed along with fittings and disclosed the income as income from business, whereas the Revenue contended that the same be assessed as “Income from house property. The issue under consideration is whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed in such a case. On this issue, the High Court observed that, mere raising of a debatable issue would not amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars and therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed.
