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 Tribunal held that penalty was not justified where all relevant facts were disclosed in the return of income, audit report, an...
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 : 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...
DCIT Vs Mahalaxmi Realtors (ITAT Pune) ITAT held that findings in the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purpose of the penalty proceedings. It is also well settled that the criteria and yardstick for the purpose of imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are different than those applied for making or confirming the addition. […]
We are of the considered opinion that estimated additions do not call for levy of penalty. Therefore, by deleting the impugned penalties for all the years, we allow the appeals of the assessee.
ACIT Vs Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited (ITAT Delhi) The penalty order reveals that the impugned penalty has been imposed by the Ld. AO for the solitary reason that the assessee made claim for deduction of expenses which were not allowable. The assessee furnished explanation for claiming higher deduction of expenses in the revised computation. […]
Penalty was not leviable as assessee made a computational error in not disallowing 1/6th out of expenses on car amounting to aforesaid Rs.1,63,263/- being 1/6th out of motor car expenses however assessees claim was accepted that this computational error was due to oversight and inadvertent mistake, and that the error was a bonafide one.
Bhartiya City Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Delhi) A conspectus of Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, makes it clear that the statute visualizes the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings to be wholly distinct and independent of each other. While the Assessing Officer may be justified in making estimated disallowance in quantum […]
Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has noticed that assessee has accounted interest expenses twice of Rs. 11.90 crores, therefore, the same was disallowed and also levied penalty of Rs. 1,46,48,271/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act on the combined amount of disallowance u/s. 14A and […]
No Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars of income when assessee filed Revised Return offering to tax rental income
Impugned Section 271(1)(c) Penalty proceedings imposed by AO is not maintainable against assessee’s legal heir under section 159 of Act
Held that the mistake in not adding back the loss on sale of fixed assets in computation of income was a bona fide mistake inadvertently. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not imposed.
Held that notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) needs to specify the limb under which penalty proceedings are initiated. Penalty not leviable, in absence of the specification of the limb.
