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...
Deduction reduced on account of interpretative process cannot per se be equated with furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Ganesh Jagannath Choukse Vs ACIT (ITAT Nagpur) This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nagpur, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 29/05/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee has filed return on, 15.05.2013 declaring income of Rs.15,83,910/-. […]
Explore the ITAT Mumbai decision in Abacus International Pte Ltd. vs. DDIT, where notional interest income on interest-free loans was assessed and its impact on penalty u/s. 271(1)(c).
Explore the case of Ranjit D. Rathod vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) where penalty proceedings were contested due to assessment discrepancies. Detailed analysis and conclusions provided.
Explore the case of Hasmukhrai A. Jobanputra vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot), addressing differences in cash balances. Detailed analysis of additions, penalties, and conclusions provided.
No penalty u/s.271(1)(c) can be imposed in respect of inadvertent and bona fide mistake committed by the assessee.
ACIT Vs Rameshbhai Jivrajbhai Desai (ITAT Ahmedabad) During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order passed under Section 153A of the Act was held to be void ab initio and thus there is no addition in the […]
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 […]
