Follow Us:

section 271(1)(c)

Latest Articles


No Penalty for Voluntary Correction of Bona fide computational mistakes During Assessment 

Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when errors are voluntarily corrected during assessment. ...

March 20, 2026 711 Views 0 comment Print

Penalties and Prosecutions Under Income tax Act, 1961

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...

October 28, 2025 532062 Views 4 comments Print

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Not Sustainable for Bona Fide 54F Claim Delayed by Builder Default: ITAT Delhi

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...

July 16, 2025 1182 Views 0 comment Print

Invalid Income-tax Section 271(1)(c) Penalty: Non-Specific Charge Legal Analysis

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...

June 7, 2025 3381 Views 0 comment Print

Penalty Proceedings Deferred must be During Quantum Appeal: Legal Framework & Judicial Insights

Income Tax : Learn how taxpayers can defer income tax penalty proceedings when quantum additions are under appeal. Understand legal grounds and...

June 6, 2025 5223 Views 0 comment Print


Latest News


Easwar Committee Recommends Non-Levy Of Penalty in certain circumstances

Income Tax : The Committee recommends that the scope of Section 273B should be suitably enlarged to provide that penalty for concealment of inc...

January 21, 2016 1162 Views 0 comment Print


Latest Judiciary


ITAT Delhi Deletes Section 271(1)(c) Penalty as Notice Lacked Specific Charge

Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a penalty after finding that the show-cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb of Sect...

June 5, 2026 78 Views 0 comment Print

Section 68 Addition Quashed as Loans Were Repaid Through Banking Channels: ITAT Ahmedabad

Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that unsecured loan additions could not be sustained where the assessee furnished confirmations, bank statemen...

June 5, 2026 219 Views 0 comment Print

No 14A Disallowance Without Satisfaction, No Penalty on Debatable Issues

Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT held that a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot survive without the Assessing Officer recor...

June 4, 2026 162 Views 0 comment Print

Liquor Trader Gets Relief as ITAT Reduces GP Rate to 3.13% & Deletes Separate Expense Disallowance

Income Tax : The Tribunal found no distinguishing factors between the assessee and another liquor trader whose GP rate of 3.13% had been accept...

June 1, 2026 297 Views 0 comment Print

Advance Tax Payment Not Shield from Penalty for Concealment of Capital Gains: Madras HC

Income Tax : The assessee argued that payment of advance tax demonstrated absence of concealment. The High Court held that a subsequent conscio...

May 31, 2026 444 Views 0 comment Print


Latest Notifications


Immunity under Section 270AA of Income-tax Act, 1961- CBDT Clarifies

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...

August 16, 2018 12054 Views 0 comment Print


Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) against non-existent entity untenable: Calcutta HC

May 8, 2025 912 Views 0 comment Print

Calcutta High Court held that initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and passing of penalty order thereof in the name of a non-existent entity (i.e. dissolved HUF) is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.

Section 56(2)(vii)(b) doesn’t apply to agreement executed before 01.04.2014: ITAT Nagpur

May 7, 2025 1236 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Nagpur held that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) (b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act came into statute by Finance Act 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 i.e., A.Y.2014-15. Accordingly, provisions cannot be made applicable to date of agreement before 01.04.2014.

Addition u/s. 69A deleted as identity, genuineness and creditworthiness proved: ITAT Ahmedabad

May 6, 2025 957 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act not sustained since three key ingredients i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of parties being proved. Accordingly, appeal of assessee allowed.

ITAT Upholds Deletion of ₹5.82 Cr Ad Hoc Profit Estimation Due to Non-Rejection of Books

May 5, 2025 588 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Pune rules against AO’s profit estimation for Ambience Greendale, citing faulty comparison and no book rejection. ₹5.82 Cr addition deleted.

AO Empowered to Modify Penalty as per Higher Authority or Court Orders

May 5, 2025 978 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Ahmedabad held that section 275(1A) of the Act empowers AO to impose or enhance or reduce or cancel penalty pursuant to the quantum appeal before higher appellate authority or court by giving effect to the quantum order.

ITAT Quashes Section 271(1)(c) Penalty on Honest Depreciation Claim Errors

May 4, 2025 777 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Surat cancels penalty on Sahajanand Medical for a depreciation claim error, stating Section 271(1)(c) doesn’t apply to honest mistakes with full disclosure.

ITAT Deletes Penalty Due to Misplaced Reliance on Case Law & Foreign Tax Credit

May 4, 2025 1632 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Mumbai deletes penalty under Section 271(1)(c), stating no deliberate concealment and distinguishing case from precedent in Mak Data ruling.

SC Relieves PwC of Section 271(1)(c) Penalty for Inadvertent & Bonafide Error

May 3, 2025 3759 Views 0 comment Print

Supreme Court overturns penalty on PwC for a genuine error in income tax return, noting clear disclosure in tax audit report negated intent to conceal.

ITAT limits Bogus Purchase Addition to 5%; No Section 271(1)(c) Penalty on Estimated Additions

April 29, 2025 1629 Views 0 comment Print

Since the business sales were accepted as genuine and only the purchases were routed through accommodation entries, only a part of the purchases needed adjustment to reflect possible inflation of expenses confirming the restriction of bogus purchase addition to 5% and when additions were made on an estimated basis, penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed.

Assessee’s Bona Fide Explanation: ITAT Delhi Deletes ₹14.88 Cr Section 271(1)(c) Penalty

April 29, 2025 3903 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT Delhi rules on penalty imposition for Vodafone West Ltd, concerning a debatable issue of interest on license fees.

Search Post by Date
June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930