Income Tax : Learn about penalty provisions under the IT Act, including penalties for defaults in tax payment, income reporting, and more. Key ...
Income Tax : Explore the implications of taxation under section 115BBE, including misuse of sections 68 to 69D, consequences of high tax rates,...
Income Tax : Understand the penalties imposable in income tax search cases. Learn about the different types of penalties and their implications...
Income Tax : Assessee filed an appeal concerning the penalty of ₹20,29,394 levied under Section 271AAA for AY 2008-09. It had initially decla...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court ruling on PCIT vs. Thapar Homes Ltd. emphasizes issuing notices under Section 274 before the Income Tax Act's lim...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that the notice under Section 274 of the Income Tax Act should have been issued before the period of limitat...
Income Tax : In a case of Vikram Dhirani vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi rules in favor of the assessee, deleting the penalty under section 271AAA due to ...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that law doesn’t permit delegation of authority by PCIT to Assessing Officer (AO) for the purpose of imposit...
Penalty under section 271AAA could not be imposed on assessee on the ground that assessee failed to substantiate the manner in which undisclosed income was derived in case assessee had included the same in his return of income and accepted by AO without making any addition to the returned income.
ACIT Vs Sh. Bhavi Chand Jindal (ITAT Delhi) Since no specific query was raised, at the time of recording statement under section 132(4) and during the assessment proceedings, however, the manner was substantiated by filing written submission and also referring relevant documents relating to undisclosed income, which were found and seized. Therefore, assessee was not […]
DCIT Vs Star Wire Ind. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer himself has recorded the statement of Shri Mohinder Kumar Gupta in the assessment order, wherein the Director of the Company has elaborated the transaction which was also confirmed by Mr. Kailash Chandra Agarwal. The assessee Company through its […]
DCIT Vs Pradeep Aggarwal (ITAT Delhi) Since the assessee in the instant case has surrendered additional income and paid the taxes due thereon and no specific query was raised by the search party at the time of search to substantiate the manner of earning such income, therefore, following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High […]
As the assessee had discharged his onus by substantiating the manner in which undisclosed income was derived, being the savings of his wife, and had paid the due tax thereon, no penalty proceedings could be initiated against assessee.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 26th March, 2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,12,72,940/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business premises of M/s. Aggarwal Associates and Jainco Group of cases and their relatives on 19.10.2011.
That the Commissioner (Appeals) has, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, grossly erred on facts and in law in observing that the surrender made by the assessee is not in course of the statement recorded under section 132(4) and hence section 271 AAA benefit cannot be granted to the appellant.
Where revenue itself failed to enquire from assessee as regards the manner in which undisclosed income admitted under section 132(4) was derived, the assessee could not be held guilty of not substantiating the manner of deriving of such undisclosed income, therefore, no penalty under section 271AAA could be levied.
