Income Tax : This guide explains the penalty and prosecution framework under the Income-tax Act for AY 2026-27. It highlights the consequences ...
Income Tax : The article explains how offences such as wilful tax evasion, failure to file returns, non-payment of TDS/TCS, falsification of re...
Income Tax : This article outlines major offences under the Income-tax Act that may result in prosecution, including tax evasion, non-payment o...
Income Tax : The law now proposes a single consolidated assessment-cum-penalty order for under-reporting of income, reducing multiple proceedin...
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 : ITAT Chennai held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the AO accepts the income declared in the return filed ...
Income Tax : Bombay High Court held penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where bogus purchase addition is sustained only on an estima...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that a deduction claim supported by prevailing judicial precedents cannot attract Section 270A penalty merely bec...
Income Tax : The High Court held that failure to pass the order giving effect within the time prescribed under Section 153 resulted in abatemen...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that immunity under Section 270AA could not be denied when the penalty notice did not specify whether th...
This guide explains the penalty and prosecution framework under the Income-tax Act for AY 2026-27. It highlights the consequences of tax defaults ranging from monetary penalties to imprisonment for serious violations.
ITAT Chennai held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the AO accepts the income declared in the return filed under Section 148.
Bombay High Court held penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where bogus purchase addition is sustained only on an estimated basis.
ITAT Mumbai held that a deduction claim supported by prevailing judicial precedents cannot attract Section 270A penalty merely because a later retrospective amendment made the claim inadmissible. The penalty for under-reporting of income was deleted.
The High Court held that failure to pass the order giving effect within the time prescribed under Section 153 resulted in abatement of the assessment proceedings. It ruled that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not survive once the assessment itself had abated.
The Delhi High Court held that immunity under Section 270AA could not be denied when the penalty notice did not specify whether the proceedings were for under-reporting or misreporting of income. The impugned order was set aside.
The ITAT held that the assessee’s exclusion of income based on the Place of Effective Management provisions involved a bona fide and debatable legal issue. It ruled that such a claim could not be treated as misreporting under Section 270A.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an arithmetical mistake committed by the assessee’s consultant did not amount to misreporting of income under Section 270A(9). The penalty was cancelled as there was no misrepresentation or suppression of facts.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer must clearly indicate whether the alleged default is under-reporting or misreporting, as both attract different consequences under Section 270A. Failure to do so rendered the penalty order invalid.
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under Section 270A were invalid because the Assessing Officer did not specify the applicable statutory charge under the provision. It ruled that such omission violated the principles of natural justice and quashed the penalty.
