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...
ITAT Pune held in Mrs Sarita Manjeet Singh Chopra Vs ITO that if the assesse had disclosed its unaccounted income filing return u/s 153A only after it was caught in search by the income tax department then that disclosed income through return would be considered as undisclosed income
In the case of ACIT Vs. Dr. Nitin Laxmikant Lad Pune Bench of ITAT have held that where assessee had furnished original return of income in which he had not declared its receipts from the profession, but pursuant to the search and seizure operation, certain incriminating documents were seized
ITAT New Delhi held In the case of Tristar Intech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) there should be concealment of income on the part of assessee. In the given case AO has initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c)
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of Shri Hafeez S Contractor vs. ACIT that penalty u/s 271(1) (c) cannot be imposed in those cases where no specific charges are mentioned in penalty notice. In the given case the AO has not specified that as to which limb the notice was issued
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of M/s Parinee Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that the concealment penalty levied by the CIT (A) in this case is on the issues which are not free from debate. In our opinion, the assessee would have got relief in most of issues relating to additions based on the estimations
ITAT held in ACIT Vs Ms Shyam Basic that if the assessee had made a wrong claim in the return of income but had furnished full particulars in its return of income then it would not amount to concealment if income and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied.
The assessment u/s 143(3) made disallowing to excess claim of depreciation. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated on disallowance of excess depreciation claimed. The assessee confronted this fact, He is agree to disallow excess depreciation. No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is levied upon the assessee. The Department can not presume that the assessee has concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars income in the return of income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in Sohan Builders Vs ACIT that if the AO had assessed the income of the assessee at some higher percentage than what the assessee had already shown in the computation then it would not amount to the concealment of income,
The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Ruchi Developers vs. ITO, where Assessee has failed to produce creditor parties in respect of alleged Bogus Purchases while he submitted all other details and evidences and additions been made,
In the case of M/s Kantilal Siyaram vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad), the assessee has claimed that advance tax was paid, which was not recorded in the original return on the income which was remained to be disclosed in original return.
