Income Tax : Discover the implications of Income Tax Act Section 270A and penalties for under-reporting or misreporting income. Learn calculati...
Income Tax : Grounds of Appeal related to the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , 1961 AY 2015-16 1. In the facts and circumstances of t...
Income Tax : Learn about the penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act of 1961 for various defaults and offenses. Find out the fines ...
Income Tax : Apart from penalty for various defaults, the Income-tax Act also contains provisions for launching prosecution proceedings against...
Income Tax : Apart from levy of penalty for various defaults by the taxpayer, the Income-tax Law also contains provisions for launching prosecu...
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 : ITAT Mumbai removes penalty imposed on Sunil Bhagwandas Vorani (HUF) as addition was made on estimation basis, not due to concealm...
Income Tax : Explore the detailed ITAT Mumbai order analysis of Yogesh P. Thakkar vs DCIT, focusing on disputed long-term capital gains and com...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Mumbai order in the case of Krimesh Ramesh Divecha Vs DCIT for A.Y. 2015-16. Understand the assessm...
Income Tax : Delhi HC: No penalty for New Holland Tractors if assessee's contention was plausible and bona fide, provided full disclosure of fa...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Grey Orange India Pvt. Ltd., allowing income tax deduction on warranty expenses. Detailed analysis of...
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...
It is not in dispute that the assessee accounted for provision of interest twice by mistake and on realising such mistake, necessary rectification entries were passed in the subsequent year and the same was offered as income.
Additions made on ad-hoc basis on estimation does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as there is no conclusive proof of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable in absence of deliberate intention to either conceal income or to furnish inaccurate particulars
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable as claim of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) already decided in favour of the assessee.
CIT Vs S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Sub-Whether there can be any penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of a debatable issue? The Division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering department’s appeal when ITAT had given relief to the assessee by holding that there could not have been penalty […]
Bhawneshwar Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) In the instant case, the matter relates to claim of interest paid by the assessee to the partnership firm where the assessee is a partner and from where the assessee also draws the remuneration. Both the interest paid and remuneration received from the partnership firm has been duly reflected […]
Jubilant Infrastructure Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The disallowance of depreciation in quantum proceedings in A.Y.2016-17 has also resulted in corresponding enhancement of deduction under section 80IAB by the equal amount. The AO has also allowed the enhanced deduction in the quantum and, therefore, no prejudice was caused to the revenue by such claim. It […]
Assessee had already closed down its business and therefore, could not file part documents as required by Assessing Officer, however, from documents produced, it is apparently clear that required details with regard to purchase price/value of property was available before authorities
Lakhwinder Singh Panag Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) A perusal of the record shows that in the quantum proceedings the explanation of the assessee that addition u/s 40A(3) on facts was not warranted, was rejected. The addition stood made. The issue was carried in appeal before the CIT(A) who also confirmed the addition by his order […]
M. Prabaharan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Before us, the Chartered Accountant Shri Jeevarathinam categorically admitted in writing that the duplication of assets has happened while calculating the depreciation as per Income Tax Act while computing the tax computation sheet by his staff. He admitted that while doing so, the staff has wrongly computed the deprecation value […]
