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 Tribunal held that lack of awareness of the assessment order and limited knowledge of tax law constituted sufficient cause for...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that a penalty notice lacking clarity on whether it relates to concealment or inaccurate particulars is invalid....
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 : 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 held that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on Bogus purchase addition cannot be levied where addition was made on estimated basis.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that as all the particulars duly furnished by the assessee relating to source of investment, mere rejection of the claim of the assessee cannot invite levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, penalty deleted.
Jharkhand High Court held that when search is initiated, penalty is leviable under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) post initiation of search is unsustainable.
ITAT Delhi held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be imposed on the basis of legal fiction of section 50C of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Chandigarh held that claiming of wrong depreciation on the advice of auditor is bona fide claim and hence penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable.
Income which was sought to be taxed in the hands of the assessee had already been taxed as income in the hands of another entity so no penalty leviable
Bombay High Court held that AO failed to satisfy the direction given by the court while issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, order for reopening of assessment and demanding penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are quashed and set aside.
Defect in statutory notice in not striking out of irrelevant ground vitiates penalty proceedings for the reason that assessee has not given sufficient notice for preparing his defense, as to grounds on which penalty proceedings have been initiated.
Galaxy Construction and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal relates to levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer in respect of addition made under the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It is an […]
Shri Altaf Hussain Laskar Vs DCIT (ITAT Guwahati) The case of the assessee is that he has committed certain mistakes in computing the income originally, whereby certain exempt income was included as taxable and certain perquisites were claimed as exempt in the revised return. In other words, earlier assessee has included the value of LIC […]
