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...
Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) We find that the assessee had claimed business promotion expenses as revenue expenditure which was sought to be treated by the ld. AO as capital expenditure. This disallowance was ultimately sustained by the Tribunal in the quantum appellate proceedings. We find that the issue in dispute was whether […]
The Bombay High Court has in its order dated 12th June, 2020 in the case of Ventura Textiles Ltd (ITA No.958/2017) has given a fresh perspective to the controversy of validity of penalty notice under section 271(1)(c). In the past the courts have held that if the show cause notice proposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) do not clearly specify whether its for furnishing inaccurate particulars or for concealment then such show cause notice and consequential proceedings are bad in law.
The issue under consideration is whether the penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) issued to the assessee who has taxed his income as per provision of section 115JB pr 115JC is justified in law?
ITAT states that under this issue the assessee has challenged the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. The payer is under obligation to deduct the tax at source and on account of failure of payer to deduct the tax at source, the penalty interest u/s 234B cannot be imposed on the payee.
Impugned penalty order passed by the AO in the name of erstwhile dissolved company is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B;
The issue under consideration is whether Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be levied in the case where the assessee surrendered the income voluntarily during the course of the assessment?
The issue under consideration is whether the AO is correct in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) merely because the assessee claimed expenditure under a different head of income?
ITO Vs Shri Bimal Talukdar (ITAT Guwahati) The issue under consideration is whether the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) initiated by the AO sustain Under Income Tax Law? In the present case, the ITAT earlier had allowed the appeal of the assessee and cancelled the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by taking note of […]
The issue under consideration is whether the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is justified in law for for making a claim which may be erroneous or wrong ?
whether CIT(A) is justified in quashing the action of the AO u/s 154 of the Act in applying provision of section 115BBE of the IT Act on undisclosed investment surrendered during the course of survey proceedings?
