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...
Where assessee chose to sit quietly and did not furnish any satisfactory explanation about cash deposited in minors account which is finally transferred to assessee’s account, then it could not be said that assessee has discharged primary onus lying on him under Explanation 1(A) of section 271(1)(c)
The Tribunal ruling has reiterated the principle of ‘bona fide difference of opinion’ arising in the context of application of most appropriate transfer pricing method. The Tribunal has ruled that any addition to income arising as a result of bona fide difference of opinion cannot be used as a basis for levy of penalty.
The law laid down in the Dilip Sheroff case as to the meaning of word ‘concealment’ and ‘inaccurate’ continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held that mensrea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed that if the contention of the revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of legislature
Even if assessee has disclosed nil income and on verification of the record, it is found that certain income has been concealed or has wrongly been shown, in that case, penalty can still be levied.
The assessee has challenged the levy of penalty on three grounds. Firstly, the assessee has argued that the penalty proceedings have been initiated for concealing the particulars of income but the penalty has been imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, penalty is legally invalid. Reliance has placed on several judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, as mentioned in Para 4 earlier. We are unable to accept the arg
Since the assessee disclosed additional income consequent to the search and seizure proceedings, the A.O. and the CIT(A) were correct in levying penalty.
Delhi High Court Ruling: 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 bonafide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act [CIT vs. Zoom Communications Private Limited (2010-TIOL-361-HC-DEL-IT)]
If the Assessing officer or Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under the Act is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, then he can direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty u/s. 271(1) (c), a sum not less than 100% but not exceeding 300% of the amount tax sought to be evaded by reason of concealment of his income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income.
This ruling provides guidance to taxpayers on the issue that merely making a claim in the return of income, which is disallowed by the Tax Authority, cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, which would attract levy of penalty.
CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762 = (2010) 322 ITR 158. As the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not.
