Income Tax : The law now proposes a single consolidated assessment-cum-penalty order for under-reporting of income, reducing multiple proceedin...
Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...
Income Tax : Understand why an income-tax penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the charge isn't specified as concealment or inaccurate...
Income Tax : Learn how taxpayers can defer income tax penalty proceedings when quantum additions are under appeal. Understand legal grounds and...
Income Tax : Understand penalties for under-reporting or misreporting income under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. Fines range from 50% to ...
Income Tax : The issue involved penalty on disallowance of lease premium deduction. The Tribunal held that admission of the issue by the High C...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court held that mere differences in property valuation do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Penalty und...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court upheld deletion of penalty where the dispute involved classification of subsidy as capital or revenue receipt. I...
Income Tax : The High Court held that classification of grant-in-aid as capital or revenue is a debatable issue. It ruled that such classificat...
Income Tax : The issue involved validity of penalty proceedings initiated through an unsigned notice. The Tribunal ruled that such a notice is ...
The issue involved penalty on disallowance of lease premium deduction. The Tribunal held that admission of the issue by the High Court made it debatable. It ruled that penalty cannot be imposed in such cases.
The Supreme Court held that mere differences in property valuation do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires proof of deliberate inaccuracy. The ruling clarifies that estimation disputes alone cannot justify penalty.
The Supreme Court upheld deletion of penalty where the dispute involved classification of subsidy as capital or revenue receipt. It ruled that such debatable issues do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The decision reinforces limits on penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The High Court held that classification of grant-in-aid as capital or revenue is a debatable issue. It ruled that such classification disputes do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The issue involved validity of penalty proceedings initiated through an unsigned notice. The Tribunal ruled that such a notice is invalid and cannot confer jurisdiction. The decision highlights the mandatory requirement of proper authentication.
The case involved penalty for failure to respond to statutory notices during assessment. The Tribunal reduced the penalty after both parties agreed on a lower amount to resolve the dispute.
The case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of penalty due to lack of clarity in the notice.
The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal held that such vagueness invalidates the entire penalty proceedings.
The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimated additions do not establish concealment, hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unsustainable.
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer does not specify whether the charge is concealment or inaccurate particulars. The penalty was quashed due to lack of clarity and inconsistency.
