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 Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a penalty after finding that the show-cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb of Sect...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that unsecured loan additions could not be sustained where the assessee furnished confirmations, bank statemen...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT held that a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot survive without the Assessing Officer recor...
Income Tax : The Tribunal found no distinguishing factors between the assessee and another liquor trader whose GP rate of 3.13% had been accept...
Income Tax : The assessee argued that payment of advance tax demonstrated absence of concealment. The High Court held that a subsequent conscio...
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 issuance of notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the particular limb under which the penalty proceedings have been initiated concludes that the notice is issued in a stereotyped manner without applying mind and accordingly imposition of penalty is bad in law.
ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance of expenses per se cannot mean that the assessee has furnished incorrect particulars of income. Accordingly, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable.
ITAT Hyderabad held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income tax Act cannot be cancelled merely because of non-specification of limb i.e., for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particular of income under which penalty is levied.
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.
