ITAT adjudicated a tax dispute regarding penalty u/s 271(1)(c), ...

Tax Penalty Overturned: No Proof of Deliberate Concealment Leads to Tribunal's Favorable Ruling for Taxpayer Under Section 271(1)(c)

May 10, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax AT

ITAT adjudicated a tax dispute regarding penalty u/s 271(1)(c), finding no justification for penalty imposition. The tribunal determined that returned income matched assessed income, and no substantive evidence of income concealment existed. The show cause notice lacked specific allegations of tax evasion or inaccurate income particulars. Given the absence of procedural fairness and no demonstrable intent to evade tax, the tribunal deleted the 100% penalty. The decision hinged on procedural defects and lack of clear evidence of deliberate tax non-compliance, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee based on principles of natural justice and procedural propriety.

View Source

← Previous Next →

ITAT adjudicated a tax dispute regarding penalty u/s 271(1)(c), ...

Tax Penalty Overturned: No Proof of Deliberate Concealment Leads to Tribunal's Favorable Ruling for Taxpayer Under Section 271(1)(c)

May 10, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

The ITAT Mumbai considered a case involving a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal found the...

The ITAT examined multiple aspects of a tax penalty case involving undisclosed income. The tribunal found no justification for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) across various...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(C) for non-filing of income tax return despite taxable income and interest income. Assessee...

The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) concerning the correct classification of income. The Assessing Officer treated the income as 'income...

The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee did not disclose non-eligibility...

The crux pertains to levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income regarding capital gains computation on sale...

Levy of penalties under various sections - The Appellate Tribunal, in a consolidated order, addressed several appeals concerning penalties imposed under various sections...

ITAT set aside penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after finding no deliberate concealment. The Tribunal noted two key disallowances: first, estimated expense addition was already...

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income was challenged. The Assessing Officer (AO) alleged that the assessee understated turnover and concealed income...

ITAT adjudicated a tax penalty case involving multiple PAN registrations. The assessee demonstrated inadvertent income reporting across different PAN statuses (from...

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's appeal and directed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to be deleted. The Assessing Officer...

Adjustment of excess service tax paid with subsequent service tax liability - case of Revenue is that Rule 6 (3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 do not provide for such...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowances in the quantum assessment order - whether any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars proved? - Tribunal directs...

CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was eligible for benefits under N/N.12/2003-ST for outdoor catering services. The tribunal found no legal...

Levy of penalties u/ss 122 and 129 of CGST/SGST Acts - expiry of e-way bill - mens rea in penalty imposition. Technically, violation of law by petitioner in transporting...

Quick Updates: