Penalty

Penalty — the law in short

Every authority in this library on penalty, with what each one decided.

• Vijay Krishnaswami v DDIT (Investigation) Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Settlement Commission accepted my disclosure. Can the department still prosecute me for evasion?
  No. Every order of settlement is conclusive under s.245-I, so where the Commission has recorded full and true disclosure the factual foundation for a wilful attempt to evade under s.276C(1) is gone and continuing the prosecution is an abuse of process. The prosecution was quashed and costs of Rs. 2,00,000 were imposed on the Revenue.
• RBANMS Educational Institution v B. Gunashekar Supreme CourtHelps department
  The section 269ST penalty falls on the person who receives the cash. If I am the buyer paying cash for property, am I exposed at all?
  Yes, but on a different footing. The Supreme Court confirmed that under section 269ST, with the penalty in section 271DA, action is to be taken on the recipient - and said in the same breath that there is also an onus on the person paying to disclose the source of such large cash. It then built the machinery by which such a payment reaches the department: a civil court before which a suit claims payment of Rs 2,00,000 or more in cash must intimate the jurisdictional Income-tax Department, and a Sub-Registrar before whom a document reciting cash consideration of that amount is presented for registration must do the same.
• K. Krishnamurthy v DCIT Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  After a search the Assessing Officer levied 10% penalty under section 271AAA on my entire assessed income — can it be confined to the part that was really undisclosed?
  It depends on how each slice of income came to light. The Supreme Court held on 13 February 2025 that penalty under section 271AAA is not automatic: the Assessing Officer must first show that the amount is undisclosed income of the specified previous year found in the course of the search. On the Rs.2,27,65,580 the assessee had admitted in his section 132(4) statement, explained the manner of earning and on which he paid tax with interest — late, but paid — the immunity in section 271AAA(2) applied and no penalty was leviable. Penalty at 10% survived only on Rs.2,49,90,000 offered later, during assessment.
• US Technologies International Pvt Ltd v CIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  You deducted the TDS but paid it late. Is penalty under s.271C leviable?
  No. Section 271C(1)(a) is attracted by a failure to deduct, not by late payment of tax already deducted. But interest under s.201(1A) still runs, and prosecution under s.276B remains available — this is not an amnesty.
• Singapore Airlines Ltd v CIT Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  My agents keep the difference between the price they charge customers and the net price they pay me — do I have to deduct TDS on money that never passed through my hands?
  Yes. The Supreme Court held on 14 November 2022 that the supplementary commission retained by IATA travel agents — the excess of the actual fare charged to the passenger over the net fare payable to the airline — is "commission" under section 194H, and the airlines were bound to deduct tax at source on it. Section 194H is read with section 182 of the Contract Act: where the contract shows a principal-agent relationship, the definition is attracted. But because the agents had paid tax on those amounts, no recovery of the shortfall could be made from the airlines; only interest under section 201(1A) survives, and the section 271C penalties were quashed.
• CIT v SSA's Emerald Meadows Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The penalty notice does not say whether I concealed income or filed inaccurate particulars. Does that matter?
  It does. A penalty notice that does not specify which limb is alleged is reported as defective — you cannot answer a charge that has not been made.
• CIT v Bank of Nova Scotia Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  I have paid the short-deducted tax and the interest to close the matter — can the department still levy penalty under section 271C?
  No, not on findings like these. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal on 7 January 2016, holding there was no substantial question of law and that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had assessed the facts and the law properly and correctly. The Tribunal had cancelled the section 271C penalty on the footing that the case was not about recovery under section 201(1) or compensatory interest under section 201(1A) — both already paid to end the dispute — and that penalty requires contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee to be established, following the Delhi High Court in Itochu Corporation and Mitsui & Company.
• CIT v Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The assessment in which the s.271E satisfaction was recorded has been set aside. Can the penalty stand?
  No. The Supreme Court held that once the original assessment order was set aside, the satisfaction recorded in it for initiating penalty under s.271E did not survive, and a penalty imposed on the basis of that order could not be sustained.
• MAK Data P Ltd v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  You surrendered the amount to buy peace and avoid litigation. Does that stop the penalty?
  No. The statute does not recognise 'to avoid litigation' or 'to buy peace' as an explanation at all. A surrender made only after the department confronts you with documents is not voluntary, and the penalty stood.
• Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd v CIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  You forgot to add back something your own audit report flagged. Is that concealment?
  No. It is a bona fide and inadvertent human error — a computation mistake, not concealment or inaccurate particulars. The audit report disclosed the item, so nothing was hidden, and the penalty was deleted.
• Radheshyam Kejriwal v State of West Bengal Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The department dropped the penalty proceedings against me after finding the charge not made out. Can it still run the criminal prosecution on exactly the same allegation?
  No, on these facts. The Supreme Court divided. Sathasivam J would have dismissed the appeal, holding that adjudication and prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act are independent and that the adjudicating officer's exoneration is at most a point for the accused to urge before the Magistrate. Chandramauli Kr. Prasad J, with Bedi J, declined to subscribe to that view, so the majority allowed the appeal and the prosecution could not continue. The majority accepted that the two proceedings are independent and can run together, but treated it as a different question once the adjudication has ended in exoneration on the same allegation.
• CIT v Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The officer disallowed your claim. Does a disallowance automatically bring penalty with it?
  No. Section 271(1)(c) needs either concealment or particulars that are factually false. Where everything was disclosed truthfully and only the legal claim was untenable, there is nothing inaccurate — and no penalty.
• CIT v Atul Mohan Bindal Supreme CourtCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  Is penalty under s.271(1)(c) criminal, quasi-criminal or civil?
  Civil — a strict liability, so mens rea need not be established. But the conditions of the section must still be satisfied, and the matter was sent back to be reconsidered on that footing.
• Union of India v Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  After Dharmendra Textile, does penalty follow automatically from every default?
  No. Whether the penalty provision applies at all depends on the conditions expressly stated in it. Once it does apply, the authority loses discretion over the amount — but not before.
• CIT v Eli Lilly & Co (India) P Ltd Supreme CourtCuts both waysSuperseded by amendment
  The TDS officer says I under-deducted under s.192. If my estimate was made honestly, does that answer the demand, the interest and the penalty?
  It answers the penalty, not the tax and not the interest. The Supreme Court treated s.192(1) as requiring the employer to estimate the salary — an exercise akin to computation — and held that where there was a shortfall the officer proceeds under s.201(1) to recover it and interest under s.201(1A) runs from the date the tax was deductible to the date the tax was actually paid. On penalty it held that s.271C should not be invoked where the issue was a nascent one and the employers had acted bona fide.
• Union of India v Dharmendra Textile Processors Supreme CourtHelps department
  Does the department have to prove you meant to conceal?
  No. Penalty under s.271(1)(c) is a civil liability enacted to remedy loss of revenue, and wilful concealment is not an essential ingredient. Prosecution under s.276C, which does need a mental element, stands on a different footing.
• CIT v Gold Coin Health Food P Ltd Supreme CourtHelps department
  My return declared a loss and even after the addition the assessed figure is still a loss. Can concealment penalty under section 271(1)(c) be levied when no tax is payable?
  Yes. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) is clarificatory and not substantive, so penalty was leviable even between 1 April 1976 and 1 April 2003 where the addition of concealed income merely reduced a returned loss and the assessed figure remained negative. Income in section 2(24) includes losses, as Harprasad had held, so the returned loss is no answer. The contrary view of a two-judge bench in Virtual Soft Systems Ltd v CIT was held not to be correct. The two assessees before the Court were spared, the Solicitor General having said the Department would not demand penalty from them.
• Sudarshan Silks & Sarees v CIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Tribunal cancelled my penalty on the facts. Can the High Court set that aside as perverse when no such question was ever referred to it?
  No. The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's order and restored the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal cancelling penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal is the final court of fact. Its finding on facts can be examined by the High Court in reference jurisdiction only if a question is referred saying that the finding is perverse, in the sense that no reasonable person could have reached it. The question actually referred was only whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the cancellation of penalty. Perversity having been neither raised nor referred, the High Court was precluded from discussing it.
• Dilip N. Shroff v JCIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerPartly overruled — read this first
  Is a valuation you put on an asset 'inaccurate particulars' if the officer disagrees with it?
  No. 'Inaccurate' connotes a deliberate act or omission and 'particulars' means the details disclosed in the return. Furnishing an assessment or valuation is not by itself inaccurate particulars. But read the editor's note — this case was later overruled in part.
• T. Ashok Pai v CIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerPartly overruled — read this first
  My bank's tax department prepared my return and got it wrong. I corrected it by revised returns which were accepted. Can concealment penalty still be levied on me?
  Not on these facts. The Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment and allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal had found the assessee bona fide, the fault lying with the professional group at his bank that handled his tax affairs, and had held that penalty could not be sustained where the revised return was accepted and no penalty was levied by reference to the original return. The reference to the High Court was general and raised no question of perversity, and the existence of mens rea is essentially a question of fact for the Tribunal. The Court also held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars carry different connotations.
• K.C. Builders v ACIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Tribunal cancelled my concealment penalty. Can the 276C prosecution still continue?
  No. Penalty under s.271(1)(c) and prosecution under s.276C rest on the same fact — concealment. Once the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, holds there was no concealment and cancels the penalty, the substratum of the complaint disappears and quashing follows automatically.
• ADIT (Investigation) v Kum. A.B. Shanthi Supreme CourtHelps department
  You took a cash loan and now face penalty equal to the whole amount. Is there any relief?
  Yes, through s.273B. The Court upheld s.269SS as valid precisely because s.273B mitigates the hardship: no penalty is imposable if you prove reasonable cause for the failure.
• K.P. Madhusudhanan v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  Must the officer say in the notice that he is invoking Explanation 1?
  No. The Explanation is part of s.271 itself, so a notice under the section puts you on notice of the whole of it. No separate intimation that the Explanation is being applied is required.
• Prem Dass v ITO Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Tribunal cancelled my concealment penalty, but the prosecution under section 276C is still running. Does the penalty finding help me in the criminal court?
  Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. Section 276C needs a wilful attempt to evade, which is a positive act that must be proved, and section 277 needs mens rea - that the person knew or believed the verification to be false, or did not believe it true. Neither can be made out from the presumption in section 132(4A) about seized books. The Court also held that the Tribunal's finding that this was a difference of opinion on estimates, not concealment, and the reduction of the penalty, could not be lost sight of, given the legislative intent in section 279(1A).
• CIT v Onkar Saran and Sons Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  I concealed income in my original return, and repeated the same figures in the return I filed after a section 148 notice. Which year's penalty law applies - the old one or the one in force when the later return went in?
  The law in force when the original return was filed. The Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals and held that where multiple returns are filed for a year, the law applicable to penalty proceedings is that in force on the date of the original return, if any. It is settled since Brij Mohan that penalty is governed by the law on the date of the offending return; the question was which return is the offending one. Since a penalty on reassessment can be quantified by reference to the income originally returned, the same return must also fix the date of the concealment.
• CIT v Mussadilal Ram Bharose Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  My income was estimated at a higher profit rate after my books were rejected, so my return fell well short of the assessment. Does that by itself mean penalty for concealment?
  No. The Supreme Court held that the Explanation to section 271(1) raises a presumption, not a conclusion. Once the returned income falls below the stipulated proportion of the assessed income, the onus shifts to the assessee to show that the failure did not arise from fraud or gross or wilful neglect - but that onus is rebuttable. Where the fact-finding body, on relevant and cogent material, is satisfied that the assessee was not guilty and the Revenue leads no further evidence, no penalty follows. Whether the onus is discharged is a question of fact, and its answer raises no question of law.
• Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co v CIT Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  Additions were made to my book profits in earlier years. Can I use that money to explain a cash credit or an unexplained payment in a later year?
  You can put the argument, and the Supreme Court says it is a real argument, but it does not win by itself. The Court held that when an intangible addition is made to book profits in an assessment, the amount added is the undisclosed income of the assessee, is as much a part of his real income as the profits shown in his books, has the same concrete existence, and could be available to him just as the book profits could. Secret profits of an earlier year may therefore constitute a fund, concealed but real, from which he may later draw to meet expenditure or to introduce amounts into his books. The Court then put the limit on it in the same paragraph: it is quite another thing to say that any part of that fund must necessarily be regarded as the source of a later unexplained expenditure or cash credit, and the mere availability of such a fund cannot in all cases imply that no further secret profits were earned in the later year. All the facts and circumstances have to be looked at.
• Brij Mohan v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  The penalty provision was made harsher after my assessment year but before I filed the return. Which version applies to my concealment penalty?
  The one in force when you filed. The Supreme Court held that a penalty is imposed for the commission of a wrongful act, so it is the law operating on the date the wrongful act is committed that determines the penalty. Where the penalty is for concealment of particulars of income, the concealment occurs when the return is filed, and the law ruling on that date applies. It is wholly immaterial that the concealed income falls to be assessed for an earlier year. The substituted clause brought in by the Finance Act, 1968 therefore governed a return filed in April 1968.
• CIT v Khoday Eswarsa & Sons Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  Additions were made to my income and confirmed on appeal. The penalty order simply relies on the reasons in the assessment. Is that enough to sustain a concealment penalty?
  No. The Supreme Court held that penalty proceedings are penal in character, so the Department must establish that the disputed receipt is the assessee's income, and must have before it, apart from the falsity of the assessee's explanation, cogent material or evidence from which it can be inferred that he consciously concealed particulars or deliberately furnished inaccurate ones. The original assessment order may be good evidence in the penalty proceedings, but penalty cannot be levied solely on the reasons given in it. Where the Tribunal cancels a penalty on findings of fact, no question of law arises and no reference can be directed.
• CIT v Anwar Ali Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  My explanation for a cash deposit was rejected in the assessment and an addition was made — does that by itself mean penalty for concealment follows?
  No. The Supreme Court held that penalty proceedings are penal in character and separate from the assessment, so the department must prove that the disputed amount was in fact the assessee's income and that he consciously concealed it or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. A finding in the assessment that the explanation is false is good evidence but not conclusive. Where there was nothing beyond the falsity of the explanation, the penalty of Rs 66,000 on an unexplained deposit of Rs 87,000 could not stand and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
• Hindustan Steel Ltd v State of Orissa Supreme CourtCuts both waysPartly overruled — read this first
  Must penalty be imposed just because the law permits it?
  No. Penalty is discretionary and is not to be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so — and not at all for a technical or venial breach, or where the default flowed from a bona fide belief.
• CIT v S.V. Angidi Chettiar Supreme CourtHelps department
  Our firm was dissolved before the penalty order was passed, and as a registered firm it pays no tax of its own. Can a concealment penalty still be levied on it?
  Yes. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that penalty could be imposed on the firm after its dissolution. The provision continuing assessment proceedings against a discontinued firm applies to registered firms as much as unregistered ones, and assessment there means more than computation - it takes in the procedure for declaring and imposing liability and the machinery for enforcing it. Liability to pay tax is not a condition precedent to penalty, as clause (b) shows, since penalty may be imposed for failing to comply with a notice even where there is no assessable income. Jurisdiction depends on the officer's satisfaction before the assessment proceedings conclude.
• JCIT v Ganesh Agarwal High CourtCuts both ways
  The Assessing Officer sent a proposal to the Joint Commissioner for penalty on my cash receipts. Does the six month limitation run from that proposal or from the notice the Joint Commissioner later issued?
  From the notice. A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court held that penalty proceedings under section 271DA begin only when the Joint Commissioner issues the notice under section 274, not when the Assessing Officer forwards a proposal, so the six months in section 275(1)(c) run from the end of the month of that notice. But the Court did not leave the Joint Commissioner free to sit on the proposal: it held he must issue the section 274 notice within six months of the end of the month in which he receives it, failing which the proceedings are time-barred. On that footing four of the ten penalty orders fell and six were restored.
• Deepak Maratha v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  My demonetisation cash deposit was added for the year ended 31 March 2017 and taxed at 60% under section 115BBE. Can that rate reach income of that year?
  The Rajasthan High Court held that it cannot. The rate in section 115BBE was raised from 30% to 60% by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, which received assent on 15 December 2016 and came into force at once - but the amendment to section 115BBE(1) was separately expressed to take effect from 1 April 2017. The law applicable to an assessment year is the law in force on the first day of that year, and a change made after a financial year has begun cannot govern the tax liability for that year unless it is expressly made retrospective. Nothing in the 2016 Act says section 115BBE is retrospective. Doubling a rate alters existing rights and is not a procedural or clarificatory change. So for the financial year 2016-17 the law in force on 1 April 2016 governs, at 30%, and the 60% rate applies from the financial year 2017-18 onwards; section 271AAC, which depends on section 115BBE, is prospective in the same way.
• Saumya Chaurasia v Union of India High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  CBDT Circular 24/2019 says prosecution under s.276C(1) is to be launched only after the ITAT confirms the penalty. My appeal is still before the CIT(A). Can the sanction under s.279(1) be quashed on that ground?
  Not where the amount sought to be evaded exceeds Rs.25 lakh. On the Delhi High Court's reading of Circular No.24/2019 dated 09.09.2019 as clarified by Circular No.5/2020 dated 23.01.2020, the requirement of prior administrative approval of a collegium of two CCIT/DGIT rank officers, and the direction that prosecution be launched only after the ITAT confirms the penalty, are addressed to cases at or below the Rs.25 lakh threshold; above it the approval of the sanctioning authority, the Principal Commissioner, suffices and no pre-condition is attached. The challenge to Circular 5/2020 under Article 14 was rejected.
• Nagendra Choudhary v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Tribunal deleted the penalty, but the department has filed an appeal under s.260A and it has been admitted. Can they keep the s.276C prosecution alive until that appeal is decided?
  Not without a stay. The Rajasthan High Court quashed a s.276C(1)(i) prosecution after the Tribunal had deleted the s.271AAB penalty, holding that the mere pendency of the department's s.260A appeal, even one admitted on substantial questions of law, does not resurrect factual findings that have been set aside. The Court expressly preserved the department's liberty to seek revival if the Tribunal's exoneration is reversed.
• PCIT v Colo Colour Private Limited High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The officer accepted my purchases but estimated a profit element on them because the sales tax department listed my suppliers as hawala dealers. Can he then levy concealment penalty on that estimate?
  No. The Bombay High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose. The Assessing Officer had himself recorded that the purchases were not in doubt, because without the material the corresponding sales could not have been made, and had merely estimated 12.5 per cent of the purchase price as the benefit, with one per cent for commission. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be founded on an addition made on estimate or guesswork. Having accepted the assessee's material for assessment as not amounting to concealment, the Department could not relabel the same material as concealment under the garb of penalty proceedings.
• Man Truck & Bus India P. Ltd. v Assessment Unit High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My APA was signed after the assessment and I filed a modified return under s.92CD(1) offering a smaller figure. The officer has levied s.270A penalty on the pre-APA assessed income. Is there anything I can do about it now?
  The Bombay High Court has granted ad-interim relief on exactly that grievance, finding force in the contention that penalty, if it lies at all, cannot be worked out on the pre-APA assessment order but must be worked out on the modified return filed under s.92CD(1). The penalty order was stayed and recovery restrained. It is an interim order only; the point has not been decided.
• Sandeep Kaur Gill v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The financier insisted on cash. Can they penalise me under 271E for repaying the loan in cash?
  Not where reasonable cause is shown. Section 269T is mandatory, but bona fide belief coupled with the genuineness of the transaction is reasonable cause under s.273B, and once that is shown no penalty under s.271E is attracted.
• Birmala Projects Pvt Ltd v Ashwani Ahluwalia High CourtCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  We paid Rs 1.5 crore in cash under an agreement. The other side says s.269ST makes the agreement void and our recovery suit is not maintainable. Is it?
  No. The Delhi High Court held that s.269ST merely regulates the mode of a transaction and imposes a fiscal penalty; it does not render the underlying agreement void or unenforceable, and the plea that the plaint was barred by law failed. The Court also recorded that the penalty under s.271DA falls on the recipient of the cash, not the payer, so on the pleaded facts the defendant, not the plaintiff, was the party exposed.
• Chavakkad Service Co-operative Bank v ITO High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  Our audit report was late because the statutory auditor was late. Can the officer still levy the s.271B penalty?
  No, where the delay is genuinely the auditor's and the report reaches the officer before the assessment is completed. The Kerala High Court set aside penalties of Rs 1.5 lakh, holding that s.273B is peremptory: no penalty can be imposed under s.271B if the assessee proves reasonable cause, and a co-operative society has no control over the timetable of the statutory auditor appointed under the State co-operative law.
• CIT (TDS) v Turner General Entertainment Networks India High CourtHelps taxpayerUnder appeal
  The show-cause notice came a year after the AO referred the matter to the JCIT. Which date starts the s.275(1)(c) clock?
  The reference, not the show-cause notice. The expression 'action for the imposition of penalty is initiated' in s.275(1)(c) refers to the date on which the first introductory step for such action is taken. The Assessing Officer's reference to the Joint Commissioner was that step, so the penalty order passed on the footing of the later show-cause notice was out of time.
• Nirlon Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  They sanctioned prosecution and filed the complaint while my appeal was still pending before the Tribunal. Is the launch itself bad?
  The Bombay High Court held that it was, and quashed the complaint. The CBDT's own guidelines require a case under s.276C(1) to be processed for prosecution where the s.271(1)(c) penalty exceeding Rs 50,000 has been imposed AND confirmed by the Tribunal, and launching prosecution before that confirmation is contrary to instructions that bind the officers of the Revenue.
• GE Capital US Holdings Inc v DCIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The officer refused immunity under s.270AA saying the penalty was for misreporting. Must he show which clause of s.270A(9) applies?
  Yes. The Delhi High Court held that once the assessee complies with clauses (a) and (b) of s.270AA(1) - paying the tax and interest and not appealing - the officer must reach a firm conclusion that the case falls in the category of misreporting, because that alone warrants rejection of the immunity application. Here neither the assessment orders nor the show cause notices contained any finding answering any of the six clauses of s.270A(9); the notices alleged 'under-reporting/misreporting' in the alternative and invoked both s.270A(2) and s.270A(9), which made them vague. The Court quashed both the rejection orders and the show cause notices. It also held that a legal position taken on the strength of a binding High Court decision, later vindicated by the Supreme Court, is not misreporting.
• Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd v PCIT, Udaipur High CourtHelps taxpayer
  Can the officer reject a s.270AA immunity application without a hearing and without saying which clause of s.270A(9) applies?
  No. The Rajasthan High Court held that the Deputy Commissioner had violated the proviso to s.270AA(4) by giving no opportunity of hearing, that his order was wholly laconic and did not indicate under which part of s.270A(9) the case was said to fall, and that the revisional authority had, without cogent reasons, cursorily placed the case within clauses (a) and (c). On the facts the amount had not been detected by the department at all - it was disclosed voluntarily during scrutiny after ten other issues had been raised without any addition - so clauses (a) and (c) were not attracted. The Court quashed both orders and directed that immunity under s.270AA be granted.
• G R Infraprojects Limited v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I withdrew my education cess claim after the Finance Act 2022 inserted section 155(18). Can the officer still treat it as under-reported income and levy penalty?
  The Rajasthan High Court set the penalty aside and directed that immunity under s.270AA be granted. Where the company withdrew its cess claim by letter dated 19 March 2022, before s.155(18) came into force on 1 April 2022, and accepted the proposed variation, it was entitled to immunity from penalty under s.270A, and the initiation was in any event non est because the officer never specified which limb of s.270A(9) was attracted.
• Conceria International P Ltd v ITO High CourtHelps departmentHigh Courts differ
  CPC has charged s.234E fee in a s.200A intimation for TDS quarters going back to 2010-11. My consultant says the Karnataka High Court struck that down. Does that help me in Tamil Nadu?
  No. The Madras High Court set the Karnataka view in Fatheraj Singhvi against the Gujarat view in Rajesh Kourani, expressly declined to follow Karnataka, and held that s.234E is itself the substantive charge — it bites the moment the statement is late and does not wait for the s.200A(1)(c) machinery inserted on 1 June 2015. The waiver-rejection order was left standing, but the Court decided no separate question about a power of waiver.
• PCIT v Jai Maa Jagdamba Flour Private Limited High CourtHelps taxpayer
  After a search on or after 1 July 2012, can the officer levy penalty under s.271(1)(c) instead of s.271AAB?
  No, not for the specified previous year. The Jharkhand High Court held that s.271AAB opens with a non obstante clause and excludes s.271(1)(c) where the undisclosed income relates to the specified previous year. Where the search was on 3 September 2014 the penalty, if any, had to be levied under s.271AAB, and because the assessee had admitted nothing in a s.132(4) statement and paid no tax on admitted income, the case fell under clause (c) of s.271AAB(1). The penalty actually levied under s.271(1)(c) could not stand. The Court also held it immaterial that no incriminating document had been found, because the statute keys the choice of section to the date of the search.
• PCIT v Sri Venkatesh Granites Pvt Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The s.271AAB penalty order never says which limb of the definition of undisclosed income is satisfied. Can the penalty survive?
  No. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's penalty order had nowhere specified whether the alleged undisclosed income satisfied the statutory parameters in the Explanation to s.271AAB, and cancelled the penalty for that reason alone. The Telangana High Court agreed and concurred that the penalty, whether at 30 per cent or at the 10 per cent the CIT (Appeals) had substituted, could not be sustained, and held that no question of law arose.
• Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Nagarik Sahakari Dhiran Mandli Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayer
  Our credit society takes and repays members' money in cash across the counter like a bank. The officer has levied penalty under sections 271D and 271E on the whole turnover. Can it stand?
  No, on these facts. The Gujarat High Court upheld the deletion of penalties of Rs 28,66,93,898 under section 271D and Rs 27,12,01,825 under section 271E. Section 273B says no penalty is imposable if the person proves reasonable cause, and that gives the authority a discretion to be exercised justly on the record. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal found on the facts that the society, whose members' accounts work like savings accounts repayable on demand, acted on a bona fide belief that sections 269SS and 269T did not apply, that the deposits were accepted as genuine with no addition made, and that its auditor had never reported a contravention. The Court found no legal infirmity and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose.
• Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v National Faceless Assessment Centre High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Assessing Officer raised my own section 14A disallowance and then called it misreporting, so he refused me immunity under section 270AA and levied penalty under section 270A. Can he do that?
  No. The Delhi High Court quashed the penalty order and directed the Assessing Officer to grant immunity under section 270AA. The only addition was a recomputation of a section 14A disallowance the assessee had itself estimated and disclosed. Both sides worked from the same details and reached different figures; the Court said that by no stretch of imagination can that be called misreporting. It also found that the penalty order did not say which limb of section 270A was attracted or how sub-section (9) was satisfied, and that the bare use of the word misreporting made the order manifestly arbitrary.
• Krishna Das Agrawal v Income Tax Department High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My Black Money Act appeal is pending and part of the demand is stayed. Can I stop the penalty proceedings until the appeal is decided?
  No. The Rajasthan High Court declined to stay penalty proceedings under the Black Money Act while the appeal against the assessment was pending before the appellate authority. The pendency of an appeal does not by itself suspend penalty proceedings, the authority has to complete them within the period fixed by s.47, and any penalty order can itself be appealed. Liberty was reserved to move against coercive steps taken after the penalty order.
• Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte Ltd v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  Immunity under s.270AA was refused because the officer called it 'misreporting'. Can they do that with one word?
  No. Denying immunity on a bare label of misreporting, without identifying which limb of s.270A or which sub-clause of s.270A(9) is attracted, was held manifestly arbitrary. The Court directed that immunity be granted.
• A K M G Alloys Private Limited v CIT (Appeals) High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My s.220(6) application against a penalty demand was rejected only because I filed no evidence of financial hardship. Is that a good enough reason?
  No. Financial stringency is only one of the three things the officer must examine; he must also consider whether a prima facie case on merits is made out and whether the balance of convenience is overwhelmingly in the applicant's favour. The Madras High Court disposed of the writ by permitting the assessee to invoke the review remedy in the Office Memorandum before the Principal Commissioner within two weeks, with four weeks' interim protection, and directed that the reviewing authority be guided by the decisions of that Court and of the Supreme Court.
• Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v ACIT (Full Bench) High CourtHelps taxpayer
  Bombay had two conflicting lines on defective penalty notices. Which one won?
  The assessee's. A Full Bench held that the grounds must be conveyed through the statutory notice, that an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness, and that non-striking of the irrelevant portion renders the penalty order bad in law.
• Enanalloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v ITO (I & CI) High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  The notice came from an Income-tax Officer (Intelligence), not from my Assessing Officer. Does he have the power?
  Yes. A Division Bench held that the expression 'income-tax authorities' is of wide amplitude and also includes the Assessing Officer, that the s.133(6) procedure is akin to a survey, and that the powers are in the nature of a survey and a general enquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income. On who may issue, the Bench adopted the Kerala High Court's earlier judgment in Kodur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, which it reproduced within its reasons and which held that by virtue of the notification of 19 August 2011 and the documents under it the Income-tax Officer (Intelligence) is the authorised person. The appeals were dismissed and the penalties stood.
• Mohmmad Zamir Khan v ACIT High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My years are before June 2013. Can the department still say the Explanation to s.179 makes me liable for the company's interest and penalty?
  The Bombay High Court says yes. It held that the Explanation added to s.179 with effect from 1 June 2013 came in only to remove the doubt created by the earlier decisions, that it is therefore clarificatory, and that on Gold Coin a clarificatory amendment operates retrospectively - so directors were liable for the company's penalty and interest for years as far back as 1995-96.
• Sundaram Finance Ltd v ACIT High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  The notice did not specify the default, but you clearly understood it. Does the defect still help you?
  In Madras, no. The assessee had understood the purport and import of the notice, and claiming depreciation on machinery that did not exist was inaccurate particulars. The penalty was upheld.
• PCIT v Ritu Singal High CourtHelps departmentHigh Courts differ
  I told the search party the money was my unaccounted income. Is that enough to escape s.271AAA penalty?
  No, not by itself. The Delhi High Court held that all three conditions in s.271AAA(2) must be fulfilled before the escape route opens. The assessee had said the amounts advanced were her unaccounted income for the year, but did not specify how she had derived that income or what head it fell under - rent, capital gain, professional income, business income out of money lending, or the source of the money. Unless such facts are given with some specificity the requirement of substantiating the manner is not met. The appellate authorities had misdirected themselves and the penalty was restored.
• PCIT v Sandeep Chandak High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  The s.271AAB penalty notice came on the printed s.274 read with s.271 form. Does that by itself kill the penalty?
  Not on these facts. The Allahabad High Court looked past the caption to the body of the notice, which told the assessee that proceedings under s.271AAB were being taken and that his reply would be considered before any order was made under s.271AAB. Because the officer had never initiated any s.271(1)(c) proceeding in the s.143(3) assessment, and because the assessee's own reply showed he had understood the notice as a s.271AAB notice, the Court held the initiation was in accordance with law and restored the penalties the Tribunal had cancelled.

The 60 strongest entries are summarised here. The other 120 entries are listed in full below, and each has its own page.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.