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...
Assessee had already closed down its business and therefore, could not file part documents as required by Assessing Officer, however, from documents produced, it is apparently clear that required details with regard to purchase price/value of property was available before authorities
Lakhwinder Singh Panag Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) A perusal of the record shows that in the quantum proceedings the explanation of the assessee that addition u/s 40A(3) on facts was not warranted, was rejected. The addition stood made. The issue was carried in appeal before the CIT(A) who also confirmed the addition by his order […]
M. Prabaharan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai) Before us, the Chartered Accountant Shri Jeevarathinam categorically admitted in writing that the duplication of assets has happened while calculating the depreciation as per Income Tax Act while computing the tax computation sheet by his staff. He admitted that while doing so, the staff has wrongly computed the deprecation value […]
Dipakkumar Ishwarlal Panchal Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Admittedly the concealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, for which act penalty under section 271(1)(c) in the present case has been levied, related to the income added as per the provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the Act. More particularly on account of the fact that actual consideration paid […]
DCIT Vs Mahalaxmi Realtors (ITAT Pune) ITAT held that findings in the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purpose of the penalty proceedings. It is also well settled that the criteria and yardstick for the purpose of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are different than those applied for making or confirming the addition. […]
We are of the considered opinion that estimated additions do not call for levy of penalty. Therefore, by deleting the impugned penalties for all the years, we allow the appeals of the assessee.
ACIT Vs Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited (ITAT Delhi) The penalty order reveals that the impugned penalty has been imposed by the Ld. AO for the solitary reason that the assessee made claim for deduction of expenses which were not allowable. The assessee furnished explanation for claiming higher deduction of expenses in the revised computation. […]
Penalty was not leviable as assessee made a computational error in not disallowing 1/6th out of expenses on car amounting to aforesaid Rs.1,63,263/- being 1/6th out of motor car expenses however assessees claim was accepted that this computational error was due to oversight and inadvertent mistake, and that the error was a bonafide one.
Bhartiya City Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) A conspectus of Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, makes it clear that the statute visualizes the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings to be wholly distinct and independent of each other. While the Assessing Officer may be justified in making estimated disallowance in quantum […]
Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has noticed that assessee has accounted interest expenses twice of Rs. 11.90 crores, therefore, the same was disallowed and also levied penalty of Rs. 1,46,48,271/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act on the combined amount of disallowance u/s. 14A and […]
