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...
ITAT Ahmedabad rules no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when income addition is based on estimation. Case details of Maruti Infrastructure Ltd. Vs DCIT explained.
ITAT Visakhapatnam sets aside penalty on Malla Appalaraju under Section 271(1)(c) due to a defective notice, ruling it void ab initio.
ITAT Visakhapatnam ruled no penalty for voluntary income disclosure post-survey, rejecting AO’s concealment claims.
ITAT Mumbai deletes penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on estimated GP additions for alleged bogus purchases in Om Sai Traders case for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12.
ITAT Pune rules in Ramchandra Jadhavrao vs. ACIT that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) applies if income is declared in return post-survey.
ITAT Mumbai rules that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied on ad-hoc estimated income, dismissing Revenue’s appeal in ITO vs. Ashok Industrial Corporation.
ITAT Mumbai ruled on Dev Engineers Vs DCIT, deleting penalties under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAB. Additions were based on estimation, lacking evidence of concealment.
ITAT Chandigarh rules against penalty on estimated income in AKM Resorts vs ACIT, reinforcing that additions based on estimation don’t imply income concealment.
Bombay High Court affirms ITAT’s decision, upholding a penalty on Veena Estate under Section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate income disclosures in a real estate transaction.
ITAT Ahmedabad dismisses penalty for disallowance of deduction under section 80IA(4), ruling in favor of the assessee as a developer.
