Search Results For: 271(1)(c)


QUERY: The assessee purchased material for construction of his factory building and partly for use of his manufacturing process. The A.O. held the purchase as bogus and added amount to total income. The A.O. levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on entire sum added in spite of fact that major part was not claimed under any head (capital expenses debited to building account). Is there any way for exclusion of the said amount? Can any sum not chargeable under the law be considered for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c)?
ANSWER: Click here to read the full answer of the expert
EXPERT:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income.

QUERY: Many times assessee declare income during the course of assessment to buy peace and to avoid litigation. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills v. CIT 168 ITR 705 (SC)] was in favour which said that there can be hundred & one reasons for such disclosure. Recently, the Supreme Court in case of Mak Data Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 358 ITR 393(SC) has adversely commented on such disclosure to buy peace and avoid litigation etc. and said that a voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). What is the exact position in law?
ANSWER: Click here to read the full answer of the expert
EXPERT:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,

The Supreme Court in Sir Shadi Lal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [168 ITR 705] had held that the assessee agreeing to addition to his income, does not follow that the amount agreed to be added was concealed income.

QUERY: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable for disallowance of amount under section 40(a)(ia) for non deduction or short deduction or late deduction of tax at source on the ground that assessee has filed inaccurate particulars?
ANSWER: Click here to read the full answer of the expert
EXPERT:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,

The Supreme Court in CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. [322 ITR 158] has held as under:

“A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 suggests that in order to be covered by it, there has to be concealment of the particulars of income of the assessee.

QUERY: An assessee makes a claim for deduction through a letter during the course of assessment proceedings. The claim is not allowed in assessment and also in appeals. The AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Whether penalty is leviable when claim has been specifically made during the course of assessment proceedings even if claim was not allowed at any stage?
ANSWER: Click here to read the full answer of the expert
EXPERT:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,

The Orissa High Court in Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT [343 ITR 316] has held

“Law is well settled that when the statute requires a certain thing to be done in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods or modes of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden.

QUERY: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied in a case where tax has been paid by the assessee under section 115JB of the Act and amount of tax payable as book profit is the same even as per order of assessment, with reference to variation in the amount of loss or income determined as per normal provisions of the Income-tax Act?
ANSWER: Click here to read the full answer of the expert
EXPERT:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,

In CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd., [327 ITR 543 (Del.)] the facts were the assessee filed return declaring loss of Rs. 43.47 crores. Thereafter, the revised return exhibiting the income at Rs. 3.87 crores were filed under provisions of section 115JB