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...
If very initiation of penalty proceedings on a defective notice is invalid and it do not warrant imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the assessee.
Ajaybhai I Gogia Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) From the fact of the case ITAT observed that there are conflicting judicial precedents on the issue under consideration and therefore, it may be inferred that the issue before us is one in which two views are possible. Further, we note that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has […]
Jagubhai Chhaganbhai Patel Vs I.T.O (ITAT Surat) In this cases in quantum appeals assessee was granted substantial relief in deleting major part of additions and only part of capital gains only on account of cost of improvement on pucca structure was partly upheld on estimation basis. Therefore, all substantial additions were either deleted or upheld […]
ITAT held that for the AO to assume jurisdiction u/s 271(l)(c), proper notice is necessary and the defect in notice u/s 274 of the Act vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer to levy any penalty.
Neelkanth Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) We find that the Assessing Officer has issued the penalty notice stating that, subsequently penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) was issued on 20.03.2017, fixing the case for hearing on 24.03.2017. The assessee was asked to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should not be imposed upon you for concealment […]
Heritage Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) At the outset learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in quantum proceedings the Tribunal vide its order dated 4.12.2019 was pleased to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessment has been quashed by the Tribunal in […]
Tanya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It was pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the quantum appeal arising out of assessment order has been decided vide ITA No. 1842/Del/2017 and the addition has been deleted. The fact could not be controverted by the Revenue. The Bench is of firm […]
ACIT Vs Swapnadeep Krushi Paryatan Kendra (ITAT Pune) The AO has imposed penalty only with reference to the amount of Rs.1.50 crore which was suo motu declared by the assessee in the return. In that view of the matter, the ratio laid down in MAK data Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has no application to the facts […]
Prakash Mithalal Oswal Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) It is found that the reported income and the assessed income of the assessee remain same except for minor disallowance of expenses. The AO has imposed penalty only with reference to the amount of Rs.50.00 lakh and odd which was suo motu declared by the assessee in the […]
Impugned Section 271(c) penalty has arisen in consequence to the lower authorities action disallowing the assessee’s section 54F deduction claim. And in assessee’s quantum appeal ITAT has already deleted the foregoing 54F disallowance and therefore, penalty in issue herein has no legs to stands as a necessary corollary.
