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...
PCIT Vs Sonu Realtors Private Limited (Bombay High Court) Wrong deduction claimed which resulted in reduction of Tax liability can’t amount to concealment of income Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) filed the appeal being aggrieved against Order dated July 20, 2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in which the order of Appellant […]
Action Construction Equipment Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Assessing Officer has not given any reason as to why he dropped the penalty in Assessment Year 2010-11 and sustained the imposition of penalty for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 under the same set of facts. Moreover, in the impugned penalty order, the Assessing Officer has stated […]
Examining the present case on the anvil of aforesaid case law, we find that the notice in this also is an omnibus show-cause notice as it does not strike off/delete the inappropriate/irrelevant/not applicable portion. Such a generic notice betrays a non-application of mind. Hence, the penalty levied pursuant to such a notice is not legally sustainable in law.
Addl. CIT Vs Airports Authority of India (ITAT Delhi) Perusal of the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty on two grounds : (i) that no valid notice u/s 274 of the Act has been issued to the assessee so as to inform the assessee as to […]
HCL Technologies Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Levy of penalty in this case is unsustainable because mere preferring a claim which is unacceptable to the Revenue does not ipso facto lead to levy of penalty. Here in this case, Form No. 56F duly signed by the Chartered Accountant justifies the plea of bona fide belief […]
In the case of the assessee at present no finding was recorded in the assessment order that there was concealment of income.The assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.True income of the assesseee was declared in the return filed by the assessee after issue of the notice u/ s 148 of the act . And the case of the assessee was made u/s 143(3) of the act on the same returned income.
Cushman & Wakefield Property Management Services India Pvt. Ltd.,Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the quantum appeal has been allowed by the Tribunal. Thus, the addition, on which penalty has been imposed by the Revenue does not […]
ITO Vs Shri Udaykumar D. Bhatt (ITAT Ahmedabad) Section 271(1)(c) cast responsibility upon the AO to reach the clear finding with respect to levy of penalty under the specific charge and if the AO fails to do so then the penalty cannot be levied as such penalty order shall not be maintainable in the eyes […]
Aanya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) In M/s. Aanya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [IT A No. 115/Mum/2020 decided on July 20, 2021] M/s. Aanya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (“the Appellant”) is a real estate company. During assessment, it was noted that the Petitioner had disclosed payment for Exchange Server […]
ACIT Vs Remi Electrotechnik Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on estimate basis without any evidence on record with regard to concealment of income. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable to be imposed only where the assessee has concealed its particulars of income or furnished […]
