Tag Archives: Section 271(1)(c)

No Penalty as Show Cause Notice issued in Casual manner : ITAT

By | May 6, 2019

A bare reading of the above notice suggests that the notice has been issued in a casual fashion. The Assessing officer has not applied his mind and no specific charge is mentioned for which the assessee was required to be show caused. In absence of the requisite contents of specific charge the initiation of proceedings… Read More »

Income Tax Commissioner Power to Reduce or Waive Penalty [ FA 2019]

By | April 21, 2019

Power of Commissioner to Reduce or Waive Income Tax Penalty [As amended by Finance Act, 2019] POWER OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER TO REDUCE OR WAIVE PENALTY In the tutorial on ‘Penalties Under the Income-tax Act’, we discussed various penalties imposable under the Income-tax Act in respect of various defaults. Apart from enacting penalty provisions,… Read More »

No Penalty of S. 271(1)(c) if wrong Loss claimed as per Tax Audit report : ITAT

By | March 26, 2019

we find that the penalty was initiated on account of loss claimed by the appellant on sale of assets, even though, that particular block of assets had not been exhausted. We do not find any justification to discard the findings reached by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee had duly disclosed the loss on sale… Read More »

No Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) where disallowances made under normal provisions but tax levied under MAT

By | January 2, 2016

As per the circular No 25/2015 issued by CBDT on 31st December 2015 , No Penalty under section 271(1) (C) wherein additions /disallowances made under normal provisions of the income tax act 1961 but tax levied under MAT provisions u/s 115JB/115JC for cases prior to AY 2016-17 Read Complete Circular

section 271(1)(c) penalty can not be levied without mentioning charge by Assessing Officer

By | December 25, 2015

Facts of the Case Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee filed his income-tax return for the impugned assessment year on 26.07.2005 on the income of Rs. 1,02,000/-. Subsequently assessment under section 143(3) was completed at a total income of Rs. 16,51,637/- by making an addition of Rs. 15,49,637/- as undisclosed income.… Read More »

Penalty for undisclosed income can be imposed under section 271AAA and not under Section 271(1)(c)

By | December 7, 2015

As per  Section 271AAA (3) No penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 271AAA. IN THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH Dr. Naman A. Shastri v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle… Read More »

Section 271(1)(c) Case Laws

By | October 23, 2015

Section 271(1)(c): Whether penalty for concealment justified in case of bonafide/inadvertent/human error ? Held-No Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court Civil Appeal no. 6924 of 2012) “Para 18. The fact that the Tax Audit Report was filed along with the return and that it unequivocally stated that the provision for payment was not allowable under Section… Read More »

Penalty of Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed if notice did not contain any grounds on which penalty sought to be imposed

By | October 7, 2015

Where show-cause notice under section 274 to assessee was defective as it did not spell out grounds on which penalty was sought to be imposed, order imposing penalty was invalid and, consequently, penalty imposed was to be cancelled IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’ H. Lakshminarayana v. Income-tax Officer N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND JASON… Read More »

Reimursement of telephone allowances and Hospitality cannot be treated as income of assessee

By | October 4, 2015

Hospitality and telephone allowances to assessee being in nature of reimbursement cannot be treated as income in hands of assessee and, consequently, non-inclusion of same in assessee’s return of income could not be treated as concealment of income and penalty was not called for IN THE ITAT CUTTACK BENCH Soumya Prakash Pattnaik v. Assistant Commissioner… Read More »