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...
Discover the implications of Income Tax Act Section 270A and penalties for under-reporting or misreporting income. Learn calculation methods and exceptions.
Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s order canceling penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Co-owner status and lack of concealment discussed.
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.
