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...
Dipakkumar Ishwarlal Panchal Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Admittedly the concealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, for which act penalty under section 271(1)(c) in the present case has been levied, related to the income added as per the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. More particularly on account of the fact that actual consideration paid […]
DCIT Vs Mahalaxmi Realtors (ITAT Pune) ITAT held that findings in the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purpose of the penalty proceedings. It is also well settled that the criteria and yardstick for the purpose of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are different than those applied for making or confirming the addition. […]
We are of the considered opinion that estimated additions do not call for levy of penalty. Therefore, by deleting the impugned penalties for all the years, we allow the appeals of the assessee.
ACIT Vs Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited (ITAT Delhi) The penalty order reveals that the impugned penalty has been imposed by the Ld. AO for the solitary reason that the assessee made claim for deduction of expenses which were not allowable. The assessee furnished explanation for claiming higher deduction of expenses in the revised computation. […]
Penalty was not leviable as assessee made a computational error in not disallowing 1/6th out of expenses on car amounting to aforesaid Rs.1,63,263/- being 1/6th out of motor car expenses however assessees claim was accepted that this computational error was due to oversight and inadvertent mistake, and that the error was a bonafide one.
Bhartiya City Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) A conspectus of Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, makes it clear that the statute visualizes the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings to be wholly distinct and independent of each other. While the Assessing Officer may be justified in making estimated disallowance in quantum […]
Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has noticed that assessee has accounted interest expenses twice of Rs. 11.90 crores, therefore, the same was disallowed and also levied penalty of Rs. 1,46,48,271/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act on the combined amount of disallowance u/s. 14A and […]
No Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income when assessee filed Revised Return offering to tax rental income
Impugned Section 271(1)(c) Penalty proceedings imposed by AO is not maintainable against assessee’s legal heir under section 159 of Act
Held that the mistake in not adding back the loss on sale of fixed assets in computation of income was a bona fide mistake inadvertently. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not imposed.
