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...
DCIT vs. Nalwa Investments Ltd (ITAT Delhi)- Though the computation of s. 14A disallowance was not made, the figures of dividend and interest were stated in the P&L A/c. Even the tax auditors did not state that s. 14A disallowance should be made. As there is no allegation by the AO that there was collusion between the auditor and the assessee to ignore s. 14A, it cannot be said that the explanation was not bona fide. Further, as Rule 8D was not enacted at the time, segregation of expenditure relatable to tax-free income would be disputable and lead to bona fide difference in opinion. So, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied.
CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals (Delhi High Court) Though it is possible that but for detection in the survey, the assessee might not have offered the income, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can only be levied if “in the course of proceedings” the AO is satisfied that there is “concealment” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars“. The words “in the course of proceedings” mean the assessment proceedings because there is no question of the satisfaction of the AO in survey proceedings. Further, the question whether there is “concealment” or “inaccurate particulars” has to be determined with reference to the return of income. As the assessee had offered the detected income in the return, there was neither concealment nor the furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Renu Hingorani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – The AO had not questioned the actual consideration received by the assessee but the addition was made purely on the basis of the deeming provisions of s. 50C. The AO had not doubted the agreement or given any finding that the actual sale consideration was more than the sale consideration stated in the sale agreement. The fact that the assessee agreed to the addition is not conclusive proof that the sale consideration as per agreement was incorrect and wrong. Accordingly, there was no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
When any fact material to the determination of an item as income or material to the correct computation is not filed or that which is filed is not accurate, then the assessee would be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c).
If the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but is also wholly without any basis and the explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c).
In order to apply the provisions of section 271(1)(c), there has to be concealment of particulars of the income of the assessee; the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income.
Ingredient about a bona fide claim is that assessee should be able to show or prove some intermediate steps in whole process of transaction; if it is not able to give evidence in respect of any step in whole process of transaction then it can be said that explanation furnished by assessee is not bona fide and is nothing but a bald claim for purposes of section 271(1)(c).
Penalty proceedings- Mere submitting a claim which is incorrect in law would not amount to giving inaccurate particulars of income of assessee, but if claim besides being incorrect in law is malafide, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) comes into play and work to disadvantage of assessee.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) – Leviability-Expenditure claimed by assessee disallowed by Tribunal-Concealment penalty cannot be imposed merely on the ground that Tribunal disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee.
We find that the A.O., CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal has only interpreted the provisions of sec. 80-IA(9) and Sec. 80HHC in a different way. As held by their Lordship, in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd (supra) that merely because the assessee has made some legal claim which has not been accepted by the A.O. that will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income of the assessee. In our opinion, there is no justification to support the A.O. for levy of the penalty on the claim of the assessee u/s 80HHC, which was not accepted. We, accordingly, delete the entire penalty by cancelling the penalty order passed by the A.O.
