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 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.
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.
