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 case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of pen...
Income Tax : The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. T...
Income Tax : The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimate...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that penalty proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer does not specify whether the charge is concealment ...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that omission of taxable foreign exchange gain in the return attracts penalty. It noted that disclosure during a...
Raj Kumar Agarwal HUF’s appeal against penalty under Section 271(1)(c) dismissed as withdrawn under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.
ITAT Allahabad quashes penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and directs AO to reconsider quantum addition in Chandra Bali Singh’s case.
ITAT Kolkata upholds disallowance of short-term capital loss adjustment for previous AY but deletes penalty due to lack of evidence of intentional wrongdoing.
ITAT Ahmedabad directs CIT(A) to reconsider penalty appeal of Shreenath Corporation, emphasizing delay condonation and pending quantum proceedings.
ITAT Chennai allowed the appeal of Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd, overturning the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate income particulars.
ITAT Cuttack dismisses revenue’s appeal, upholding CIT(A)’s decision to delete ₹3.08 crore penalty as the underlying quantum addition no longer exists.
Calcutta HC dismisses revenue’s appeal in PCIT vs. Chetan Kumar Tekriwal case, ruling that Section 271(1)(c) penalty is not applicable when full disclosure is made.
Hon’ble ITAT Pune rules that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) should not be imposed for genuine mistakes or debatable claims in tax assessments.
ITAT Kolkata allows appeal, deletes Rs. 1,99,911 penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for commission income estimation dispute.
ITAT held that disallowances based on estimations do not constitute underreporting of income and thus are not grounds for a penalty under Section 270A.
