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...
Bombay High Court held that if an irrelevant matter is not struck off in the notice, it indicates the AO’s uncertainty regarding the basis for imposing the penalty. Such ambiguity implies non-application of mind, rendering the notice invalid.
Explore the case of Pr. CIT vs Ansal Properties: Penalty notice invalidated due to ambiguity in specifying Section 271(1)(c) limb for penalty proceedings.
Explore the Karnataka High Court’s ruling on penalty notices under Income Tax Act in CIT vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows. Learn about specificity requirements and key findings.
Delhi High Court’s ruling in Pr. CIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. clarifies Section 44, emphasizes specificity in penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c).
Delhi High Court judgment on PCIT vs GoDaddy: Assessee succeeds in quantum appeal, penalty deleted. Analysis of legal tenability and implications under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Explore the confusion surrounding Section 271(1)(c) penalty in PCIT Vs Modi Rubber Ltd. (Delhi High Court). Lack of clarity on concealment or inaccurate particulars raises questions.
Explore the Delhi High Court’s judgment in PCIT Vs Unitech Reliable Projects regarding Section 271(1)(c) penalties. The court emphasizes the necessity of specifying the relevant limb in penalty proceedings.
Delve into Delhi High Court’s judgment on PCIT Vs Minu Bakshi, exploring penalty imposition, notice specifics, and impact on income tax cases.
PCIT vs. Minu Bakshi: Delhi High Court Clarifies No Penalty if notice for the imposition of penalty did not specify particular limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty was levied.
CIT (Exemptions) Vs Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation, Delhi High Court emphasized that penalty notice must specify precise limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty is imposed.
