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...
M/s Inspectorate Singapore Pte. Ltd. Vs ADIT (ITAT Delhi) Assessee was under the belief that due to the ‘make available’ Clause in Article 12 (4) (b) of India Singapore DTAA, the consideration paid by the Indian customers to assessee cannot be regarded as ‘fees for technical services’ and further since there was no transfer of technology […]
Recently, in Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA No.6680/Mum/2012 with ITA No.5553/Mum/2014 and ITA No.5479/Mum/2015, A.Y.: 2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13, decided on 26.07.2018], briefly stated, the assessee-company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of pharmaceuticals products filed its return of income for A.Y. 2005-06 on 31.10.2005
Assessee-company engaged in business of letting out of immovable property, had claimed benefit of section 54. AO found that assessee, being a company was not entitled to claim deduction under section 54; thus, he initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, assessee contended that penalty was not imposable, only on account of having made an ineligible claim.
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 application made by an assessee, may grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A (not being penalty for misreporting) and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, subject to the conditions specified therein.
As neither the assessment order nor the show cause notice stated the specific charge of alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income vis-a-vis addition made by AO, entire penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were vitiated.
Where AO had issued the notice of penalty without specifying the grounds of the same, imposition of penalty was unjustified, because this being a mandatory requirement could not be construed as a mere technical error.
Challenging the order,dated 18/12/2015,of the CIT(A)-28 Mumbai the Assessing Officer (AO)has filed the present appeal.Assessee-firm,a builder and developer,filed its return of income on 25/09/2010,declaring total income of Rs.6.29 crores.The AO completed the assessment on 23/12/2011,determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.7.40 crores.
The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Durgapur dated 31-3-2015 for assessment year 2010-11 in respect of upholding the penalty of Rs. 3,01,031 imposed by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
CIT Vs M/s. L & T Finance Ltd (Bombay High Court) In none of these orders there is any whisper of the alleged particulars of income which has been concealed or what particulars of income which have been filed is inaccurate. Mere using the words that there has concealment of income and / or furnishing inaccurate […]
A issue being a debatable issue at the point of time when the assessee filed its return of income penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on that count cannot be sustained, mere fact that the addition has been made or confirmed does not per se lead to imposition of penalty
