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...
ITAT Ahmedabad rules accepting stamp authority valuation is not proof of incorrect sale consideration, removing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
Mumbai ITAT deletes penalty under section 271(1)(c) for Eureka Outsourcing Solutions, stating making an incorrect claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules in favor of Kapilaben Patel, deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(C) for undisclosed income, highlighting voluntary disclosure’s importance.
Mumbai ITAT quashes penalty in DCIT vs Sasan Power Ltd case, ruling that furnishing inaccurate expenditure claim does not constitute inaccurate particulars of income, citing bona fide mistake.
ITAT concluded that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was unsustainable due to the defect in the statutory notice and the fact that the penalty was imposed on additions made through estimation.
Explore the case of Dombivali Paper Mfg. Co. challenging penalty under section 271(1)(c) for alleged bogus purchases. Detailed analysis, tribunal’s view, and legal insights provided.
Explore the case of Ramprasad Nigam vs ITO under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowed exemption claim under Section 54. The penalty is quashed based on accurate disclosure.
ITAT Mumbai held in Supertech Construction Company Vs ACIT that penalty notice lacked clarity on grounds for penalty & penalties cannot be levied on additions made on Estimated Bogus Purchase Addition.
Read the full text of ITAT Delhi’s order in Orient Clothing Co. vs. ACIT. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) deleted due to vague notices. Analysis and implications discussed.
ITAT Delhi cancels penalty under section 271(1)(c) in Identity Wellness Centre case. Displacement of fair market value supported by valuation report by AO.
