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...
Defect in statutory notice in not striking out of irrelevant ground vitiates penalty proceedings for the reason that assessee has not given sufficient notice for preparing his defense, as to grounds on which penalty proceedings have been initiated.
Galaxy Construction and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal relates to levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer in respect of addition made under the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. It is an […]
Shri Altaf Hussain Laskar Vs DCIT (ITAT Guwahati) The case of the assessee is that he has committed certain mistakes in computing the income originally, whereby certain exempt income was included as taxable and certain perquisites were claimed as exempt in the revised return. In other words, earlier assessee has included the value of LIC […]
ITAT Delhi held that merely making a claim which is not sustainable in law will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars entailing levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act automatically.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 271-1-c of the Income Tax Act not imposable when the addition on account of bogus purchases is done on adhoc estimated basis As adhoc estimated based addition doesn’t tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
ITAT Delhi held that as no adjustment on transfer pricing issue would subsist and therefore there is no question of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on such addition.
Victory for Sanjay Duggal as ITAT Delhi quashes assessments under 153A, nullifying penalties. Learn why the penalty orders couldn’t survive. Decided in favor of the assessee.
Specification of Charge of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is an important factor while deciding the matters in litigation- Ganga Iron and Steel Trading Co. v Commissioner of Income Tax dated 22.12.2021 , 447 ITR 743 (Bom.)
Assessee not liable for penalty under Section 271(1 )(c) when an addition is being made with the help of deeming provision of Section 50C
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is leviable as incomes were not offered to taxation with a dishonest intention to conceal the income and evade tax.
