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...
Hon’ble Tribunal held that whenever the consideration is received in advance for the particular sale, The money will be taxed in the year in which the sale is made and not in the assessment year in which the advances are received.
TechNVision Ventures Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, where claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Assessee sold immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs.13,70,000/-. The stamp duty valuation price was Rs.17,90,085/-. Accordingly AO invoking the provision of section 50C made addition on account of short-term capital gain.
The AO initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and sustained the penalty in respect of addition made due to provision for sundry debtors and provision for suspense.
In the instant case, the assessee has sold 71233 shares for Rs.3.33 crore under the buy-back scheme. This sale consideration comprises Rs.1.06 crore as interest. The assessee calculated the capital gain considering the total receipt of Rs.3.33 crore as value of sale consideration while the A.O. taxed Rs.1.06 crore as income from other sources which was confirmed by the Tribunal.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held in Manpreet Kaur vs CIT that if the assesse had claimed exemption u/s 54 for utilizing the sales proceeds in the construction of the residential house then the onus to prove that the sales proceeds had actually been used in the construction of residential house in on assesse.
In, the present facts of the Case the Hon’ble High Court held that no penalty could be levied until it is proved that there was an active concealment or there is deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
In the case of DCIT Vs. M/s Sunrise Stock Services P.Ltd. Chandigarh bench of ITAT reversed the order of CIT (A) who deleted the penalty made on estimation basis. It was allegation of AO that assessee voluntarily surrendered the addition and statement of the director was recorded.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of M/s. Gillette India Ltd. vs. ACIT that the services availed are intra-group services in the nature of Accounting and Financial Reporting Services, Employee services etc. . These are routinely outsourced by no. of companies in India and other countries because of their economic
The ITAT Chennai in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Rattha Citadines held that relying on the same information as available on the date of filing original return of income in filling revised return but making a different claim , in the absence of assessee’s bonafide expenditure would be deemed as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income making assessee liable to face penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
