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 case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of pen...
Income Tax : The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. T...
Income Tax : The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimate...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded ₹95.81 lakh commission disallowance, holding that non-response to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justi...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling cl...
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...
It has been held that notice issued by AO should specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty proceedings has been initiated.
Gujarat Smelting & Refining Co. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The assessee cannot be absolved from the penalty merely on the reasoning that it has agreed for the addition/disallowance during the quantum proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Private Ltd versus CIT reported 38 com 448 has held as under: […]
Rajendra Venkat Reddy Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer sought to levy penalty in respect of addition of Rs.15,00,000/- being unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts held by the appellant. The addition was purportedly made u/s […]
Pur Opale Creations Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has disclosed particulars of loss in sale of assets before the authorities below. Instead of treating a loss as capital loss the assessee has treated the same as business loss and therefore, it cannot be said to have not […]
Element of consciousness in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income coupled with circumstantial evidences should be present in the particular case.
Prajatantra Prachar Samity Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack) It is noticed that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has already deleted the additions made in the quantum assessments on the basis of which penalty has been levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for all the three assessment years, we are of the view that the penalty has […]
Krishan Kumar Goel Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) AO has made additions and computed the income at Rs.1,88,85,961/-. Nowhere in the order of the AO there is any whisper that AO is not satisfied by the compliance by the assessee to his notices or queries. Now, the same AO has passed the above said penalty order. […]
Clean Science & Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (A) (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present appeal relates to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. On perusal of the penalty order as well as the assessment order, it would reveal that the penalty was levied for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income […]
The only fault of the assessee was of claiming Tax deducted at source wrongly. The learned Assessing Officer should have refused the credit of such TDS but should not have taxed interest income in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, even on the merits the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied.
Bhikhabhai Ambalal Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Ld. AR submitted that mere existence of addition during the assessment proceedings does not attract provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the present case, the CIT(A) has not pointed out as to on what basis the penalty was imposed. In fact, notice under Section 274 read […]
