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...
These are appeals by the Assessee against three orders all dated 13.06.2016 of C.I.T.(A)-I, Kolkata relating to A.Y. 2006-07 to 2008-09.
The ITAT bench comprising of Accountant Member T. S. Kapoor and Judicial Member Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not attract when assessee makes an Ineligible Claim.
The Kolkata bench of ITAT recently held that penalty cannot be levied since show cause notice issued in the present case under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Assessee is not absolved of penalty because the additional income has been declared to buy peace. It must follow therefore that the above strategy (buy peace) by itself will not justify imposition of penalty, unless the requirement of the section under which the penalty is imposed are satisfied.
. The provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not attracted in cases where income of the assessee is assessed on an estimate basis and addition is made on that basis. Even if the assessee is not able to substantiate the explanation, but his explanation is not lacking bona fide, and, therefore, we are of the view that it is not a fit where vigour of provisions of section 27 1(1) is attracted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench, on Wednesday furnished an order which ensure that tax payers are not charged penalty for unspecified reasons.
Nowhere in the assessment order states the specific charge of alleged concealment and / or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the entire penalty proceedings stand vitiated, because it is not in accordance with law.
Sri Sachindra Nath Kayal Vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) It undisputed fact that assessee has earned LTCG which was not offered to tax. It is also undisputed that the disclosure of the same made in balance-sheet of the assessee. Thus, we note that non- offering of LTCG to the tax was not deliberate. It was out […]
The requirement to obtain previous approval of the IAC is mandatory as it is to safeguard the interests of the assessee against arbitrary exercise of power by the AO.
DCIT Vs. Sh.Vipan Guppta Prop. (ITAT Chandigarh) We find no infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in deleting the penalty levied following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s Hycron Electronics Vs. ITO in ITA No. 326/Chd/2015 relating to assessment year 2009-10. On perusal of the said order we find that […]
