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 a penalty notice lacking clarity on whether it relates to concealment or inaccurate particulars is invalid....
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 : 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...
In this case AO has considered the full value consideration U/s 50C as against the actual sale consideration declared by the assessee. The increased of value by the AO in the full value consideration does not amount either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Pranav Kumar Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by both the sides and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal is with respect to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the present appeal, the show cause notice dated 27.11.2017 […]
Pradeep Sugamchand Kawadiya Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The short point involved in this case as to whether the penalty is sustainable when the same has been initiated and levied without specifying the alleged guilt committed by the assessee either for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Brief facts leading to this […]
In our considered opinion, additions which are mere estimated additions do not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and it is not a fit case of levy of penalty.
ACIT Vs M/s. Aerens Buildwell Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) As noticed, the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings has reversed the action of the Revenue. It is trite that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not automatically attracted merely because it is lawful to do so. The penalty is not ordinarily to be imposed unless assessee obliged in […]
Vibracoustic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Addl. IT (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 […]
Jhodinda Bhojpura Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) It is well-settled that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct and as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananthraman Veera singhaiah & Co.Vs. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457, the finding in the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as […]
Mayur Batra Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Petitioner states that before levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c), the replies of the petitioner filed on 17th December, 2021 and reiterated as well as uploaded on 22nd and 27th January, 2022 were not considered by the respondents. He further states that the petitioner has not been granted […]
CIT (International Taxation) Vs Gracemac Corporation (Delhi High Court) This Court is in agreement with the opinion of the Tribunal that Section 271(1)(c) penalty can only be levied in such cases where concealment of income has been proven. If the quantum order itself has been set aside in an appeal preferred by the respondent/assessee, there […]
Joison Kundu Kulam Johny Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Assessee submitted that his case was mishandled by one Mr. Nagesh Shastry, Income Tax Practitioner, who has been indulging in claim of fraudulent refunds by fictitious claim of deductions, which was unearthed by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. It was submitted that without the […]
