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...
ITAT Delhi held that as no adjustment on transfer pricing issue would subsist and therefore there is no question of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on such addition.
Victory for Sanjay Duggal as ITAT Delhi quashes assessments under 153A, nullifying penalties. Learn why the penalty orders couldn’t survive. Decided in favor of the assessee.
Specification of Charge of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is an important factor while deciding the matters in litigation- Ganga Iron and Steel Trading Co. v Commissioner of Income Tax dated 22.12.2021 , 447 ITR 743 (Bom.)
Assessee not liable for penalty under Section 271(1 )(c) when an addition is being made with the help of deeming provision of Section 50C
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is leviable as incomes were not offered to taxation with a dishonest intention to conceal the income and evade tax.
ITAT Chennai held that levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unsustainable as the matter is highly debatable.
ITO Vs Pritesh Mafatlal Shah (ITAT Mumbai) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd., [322 ITR 316] wherein the Hon’ble High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal in holding that estimated rate of profit applied on the turnover of the assessee does not amount to concealment or furnishing […]
ITAT Chandigarh held that as tax finally assessed would be equal to the tax deducted at source and hence there is no basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
P.S. Jayaraman Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) Ld. CIT(A) concurred with assessee’s submissions that deduction u/s 54F was solely due to difference in interpretations of the provisions and therefore, the penalty was not to be levied on this count. However, the provisions of Sec. 54EC were clear that the investment in a financial year was not […]
ITAT Mumbai held that estimated rate of profit applied on the alleged non-genuine purchases doesnt amount to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable.
