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 Delhi rules in favor of Grey Orange India Pvt. Ltd., allowing income tax deduction on warranty expenses. Detailed analysis of...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi rules interest income on FDs linked to SEZ business operations is deductible under Section 80IAB. Analysis of Candor Gu...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court judgment on GE Capital vs. DCIT, distinguishing under-reporting and misreporting as separate offenses, resulting ...
Income Tax : Discover the ITAT Bangalore ruling on IBM Canada Limited vs. DCIT, where salary reimbursements of seconded employees were deemed n...
Income Tax : Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad's order canceling penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Co-owner sta...
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...
Hero Honda Motors Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- In our considered opinion, the stand taken by the assessee at the time of filing of return of income was a possible and plausible view and therefore, the penalty is not justified. The judgement of Honourable Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. reported in 327 ITR 158 also supports the case of the assessee because in that case, it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that mere making of a claim by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee and such a claim made in the return of income cannot amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income unless it is found that any details supplied by the assessee in this return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. In our considered opinion, this judgement of Honourable Apex Court supports the case of the assessee in the present case and respectfully following this judgement, we delete the penalty.
CIT Vs Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd (Delhi High Court)- When the assessee accepts the excess depreciation claimed inadvertently and the same being disallowed by the AO, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted in such a case.
Sanjay S. Shah Vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- The fact that the assessee got credit of TDS u/s 154 proceedings in fact goes against the assessee. When the assessee received TDS in respect of some FDRs, and not in respect of other FDRs as claimed by him, he should have obtained the duplicate certificates and should have filed them with the return of income showing total interest received by him. Instead, he chose not to show the interest income to the extent of Rs.2,11,172/-.
No penalty can be levied under s 271(1)(c) when there was only the CBDT Circular on the taxation of ESOP shares and where the assessee offered certain income in a particular year and paid taxes bona fidely and the AO taxed the same in another year.
Shri Pankaj Rathi Vs CIT (Calcutta High Court) – It is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under Section 271 (1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income. When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise.
In this appeal preferred under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) assailing the order dated 13-2-2009 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “B”, New Delhi (for short ‘the tribunal’) in ITA No. 2299/Del/2007 pertaining to the assessment year 2001-02 the revenue has raised the following substantial question of law.
Senthamarai Constructions v CIT (High Court of Madras) – Assessee filed the revised return in respect of the first two assessment years and filed the return for the first time for the last of the assessment year only after search in the Managing Partner’s residence, wherein undisclosed cash and investments were found. The conduct of the assessee, hence, assumes significance in coming forward to disclose the income of the firm, which are relatable to the investments made by the Managing Partner.
Facts (a) that the appellant had disclosed all material facts and (b) raising a legal claim, even if it is ultimately found to be legally unacceptable, cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income,
ACIT vs M/s Seaways Shipping Ltd. (ITAT) (ITAT Hyderabad) – Non deduction of TDS by the assessee was resulted in disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a) (ia), that itself cannot be construed as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The assessee has failed to deduct TDS which resulted in disallowance of expenditure; the mistake committed by the assessee was compensated by disallowing the expenditure. Further, the Revenue cannot penalise the assessee by levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In order to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, there has to be concealment of particulars of income of the assessee or the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.
Merck Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Provisions of sec. 94 are very much clear and it cannot be said that there is any ambiguity in the provisions and therefore, appellant should not have claimed the aforesaid loss knowing fully well that the provisions of sec. 94 are applicable to such transactions. Appellant has adjusted the aforesaid loss against the profit on sale of short term capital gains which is illegal. Appellant being a reputed company, advised by reputed and learned counsels for the past many years cannot be said to be not aware of the said provisions of the Act. For the above reasons, appellant’s submissions on this issue are rejected and it is held that AO is right in levying penalty u/s 271(1) and holding that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. – Assessee’s appeal partly allowed.
