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...
15. Though a search and seizure operation was conducted on 31.05.2003, but no indiscrirninating material was found therein. It seems that consequent upon the search in response to a notice under section 153A the assessee opted that the original return be taken as a return under the aforesaid provision. Thereafter, a questionnaire was issued requiring the assessee to inter-alia file the details of loans and gifts
In the present case, admittedly the Assessment Year being 1988-89 and the search having taken place on 03.07.1987 the return of income was not due before 31.07.1988. Therefore, whether the income represented by the value of the asset was shown in the return of income or not became irrelevant once a declaration had been made about such income having not been disclosed
In the case of CIT v. Suraj Bhan [2007] 159 Taxman 26 Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High held that when an assessee files a revised return showing higher income and gives an explanation that he offered higher income to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of higher income having been subsequently declared.
We have read the order of the High Court (see [2000] 241 ITR 124) and the statement of case. Given the facts and circumstances, we do not think that any interference with the order of the High Court is called for. 2. The civil appeals are dismissed.
Shorn of all details, it emerges that the assessee first filed his returns for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 showing income ranging between Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 12,000. Later action under Section 132 was taken against him which led to reopening of the assessment. A notice under Section 148 was served on him
Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. M. George & Bros. [1986] 160 ITR 511 held that where the assessee for one reason or the other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty solely on the basis of the surrender will not be well-founded.
If two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. This is a well ‘accepted rule of construction recognised by this Court in several of its decisions.
