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...
Bharat Rana Chaudhry Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) ITAT find that sub-clause (iii) of section 271(l)(c) provides mechanism for quantification of penalty. It contemplates that the assessee would be directed to pay a sum in addition to taxes, if any, payable him, which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times the […]
Sh. Prem Pal Gandhi Vs ACIT (ITAT Amritsar) The appellant objected to the levy of penalty as bad in law. He challenged that the AO has not mentioned under which limbs of section 27 1(1)(c) of the Act, whether for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty was initiated. Thus, He has […]
Association of Indian Forging Industry Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Association of Indian Forging Industry (hereinafter referred to as appellant) is a not-for-profit company incorporated u/s 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 and is also registered u/s 12A of the I.T. Act 1961, therefore eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. As per the memorandum […]
Mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, would not, ipso facto, amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of Income
If very initiation of penalty proceedings on a defective notice is invalid and it do not warrant imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the assessee.
Ajaybhai I Gogia Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) From the fact of the case ITAT observed that there are conflicting judicial precedents on the issue under consideration and therefore, it may be inferred that the issue before us is one in which two views are possible. Further, we note that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has […]
Jagubhai Chhaganbhai Patel Vs I.T.O (ITAT Surat) In this cases in quantum appeals assessee was granted substantial relief in deleting major part of additions and only part of capital gains only on account of cost of improvement on pucca structure was partly upheld on estimation basis. Therefore, all substantial additions were either deleted or upheld […]
ITAT held that for the AO to assume jurisdiction u/s 271(l)(c), proper notice is necessary and the defect in notice u/s 274 of the Act vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer to levy any penalty.
Neelkanth Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We find that the Assessing Officer has issued the penalty notice stating that, subsequently penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) was issued on 20.03.2017, fixing the case for hearing on 24.03.2017. The assessee was asked to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed upon you for concealment […]
Heritage Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) At the outset learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in quantum proceedings the Tribunal vide its order dated 4.12.2019 was pleased to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessment has been quashed by the Tribunal in […]
