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 Mumbai rules that penalty cannot be maintained after assessment order is quashed, restoring a case to CIT(A) for fresh hearing.
ITAT Mumbai quashes penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for three assessees due to defective notices and debatable issues in light of Bombay High Court precedents.
Raj Kumar Agarwal HUF’s appeal against penalty under Section 271(1)(c) dismissed as withdrawn under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024.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.
