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...
xplore DCIT Vs Polyplex Corp. Limited case. Learn why penalty for disallowed tax claim isn’t justified. Details & key takeaways here.
Can penalty under Section 271(1)(c) be imposed if self-assessment tax was paid before notice u/s 148? Read the detailed analysis of Smt. Kavita Sachdev Vs ITO (ITAT Indore).
Tribunal ruled that mere disallowance of expenses or enhancement of returned income does not automatically warrant the imposition of penalties under Section 271(1)(c)
In a case of DCIT Vs Milan Kavin Parikh, ITAT Mumbai dismisses Revenue’s appeal against deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the quantum addition was deleted.
Read how ITAT Mumbai ruled in Jatin Enterprises vs ACIT case, quashing a penalty notice containing concealed and inaccurate income particulars.
Explore the Bombay High Court’s ruling on PCIT vs. ICICI Bank Ltd regarding accuracy in income reporting and the deletion of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.
Mumbai ITAT ruled no penalty under section 271(1)(c) if bona fide mistakes in original return were corrected during assessment. Full text analysis included.
Discover ITAT Mumbais decision in S Sagar Enterprise vs DCIT, allowing refund of excess appeal fees and deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi rules against penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate income particulars from property sale, emphasizing legal and factual clarity.
ITAT Kolkata decision: No penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Kalna II CADP Farmers Service Co-Op. Society after deletion of the addition basis for penalty.
