Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Penalties under Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A deleted for taxpayer who claimed software distribution receipts weren't taxable in India

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The ITAT ruled that penalties under sections 271(1)(c) and 270A against the taxpayer were improper and directed their deletion. The tribunal held that merely making an unsustainable claim that receipts from software distribution were not taxable in India cannot constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars to warrant penalty under s.271(1)(c), especially when the taxpayer fully cooperated during assessment proceedings. Regarding s.270A penalty for under-reported income (where DRP reduced attribution from 80% to 30%), the ITAT determined this was not an automatic penalty situation, citing D.C.Polyester and Hindustan Steel Ltd precedents. The tribunal found the exception under s.270A(6)(a) applicable as the taxpayer had disclosed all material facts and provided bona fide explanations.....