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 : Tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years was not permissible where alleged escaped income was only ₹38 lakh. Since sta...
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 : 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...
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.
Section 271AAA seeks to impose penalty where undisclosed income is detected during the course of search initiated under Section 132 of the Act on or after 01.06.2007 which condition has been fulfilled
Royal Rubber Works Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Undisputedly, the addition based on which the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was on account of sundry creditors. While deciding the quantum appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal has deleted the major part of the addition, accepting assessee’s submission that such amount was […]
Triune Energy Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In regard to second charge for which penalty is levied for interest on TDS it can be observed that the ld AO in his assessment order had not mentioned a word regarding his satisfaction for proceeding with penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act while passing the […]
Kalra Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted, where the Assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It is also a well-accepted proposition that the aforesaid two limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. […]
It is held that the Penalty Notice is defective, therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is not maintainable.
Respondent furnished inaccurate particulars of his income in the garb of fictitious cash sales with a view to claim Section 81-IC exemption
It is settled position of law that AO cannot levy penalty on charges different from the charges for which penalty proceedings were initiated
Respondent had voluminous transactions, it committed an error while posting the relevant dividend entry, which was covered by one voucher since it was received on the same security.
Assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness.
