Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when errors are voluntarily corrected during assessment. ...
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...
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...
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...
Income Tax : Learn how taxpayers can defer income tax penalty proceedings when quantum additions are under appeal. Understand legal grounds and...
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 : The case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of pen...
Income Tax : The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. T...
Income Tax : The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimate...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded ₹95.81 lakh commission disallowance, holding that non-response to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justi...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling cl...
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...
Conclusion: Issue regarding claim of depreciation could not be decided until dispute regarding capitalization of expenses in assessment order was decided. Therefore, the same was restored to the file of CIT(A) with the direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee,
Since the quantum addition stands deleted by the ITAT in the above order, there remains no basis for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c)
If initiation of penalty is one limb & levy of penalty is on other limb, then in absence of proper SCN, there is no merit in levy of penalty
If sales are not disputed, entire alleged bogus purchases cannot be disallowed and only the gross profit on the alleged purchases to be disallowed. No penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on estimated additions.
ITAT held that if a Penalty notice is vague then penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) on that basis were vitiate
Manjulata Sahoo Vs PCIT (ITAT Cuttack) It was the submission that against the order of the Tribunal, the assessee has filed appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court of Orissa and the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Orissa was pleased to admit the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.8 of 2021 vide order dated […]
Non-specification of limb of the notice would render section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings invalid. ITAT held that notice u/s 271(1)(c) is omnibus notice, thus defective which goes to the root of the matter. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act alleging inaccurate particulars not leviable as assessee was subjected to tax on book profits u/s 115JB.
ITAT Mumbai deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act as penalty order was issued without striking off the irrelevant limb/ inapplicable words.
Pankajkumar Babulal Tiwari Vs ACIT (ITAT Amhadabad) Asessee under the bona fide belief not offered income on receipt from LIC in original return however rectified the same while filing the return under section 148 of the Act. The assessee also paid due tax on such receipt even before issuance of notice under section 148 of […]
