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 has deleted the entire addition and disallowance based for imposition of penalty, the penalty imposed so cannot continue and therefore, deserves to be deleted in full with reference to aforesaid the addition & disallowance.
In PCIT Vs Bhudeva Estate Pvt. Ltd., Delhi High Court emphasized that notices for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must explicitly specify grounds for penalty imposition.
Delhi High Court dismisses Departmental appeal on penalty case PCIT vs Gopal Kumar Goyal. Analysis of failure to clarify grounds, AY 2004-05. Full judgment included
In the case of D.C. Polyester Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), penalty under section 270A was contested for changing income head. Detailed analysis and outcome explained.
Mumbai ITAT deletes penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on estimated quantum addition based on information from Sales Tax Department. Full text order.
ITAT Pune case Shivaji Dattatray Sonawane vs ITO. Explore why the penalty for inaccuracy can’t be levied if the notice was for concealment.
Understand the condonation of delay imposed by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Standard Chartered Grindlays Pty Ltd. Learn about the penalty imposed and the background of the appeal under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The ITAT Delhi cancels a penalty imposed on Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. due to an unqualified offense notice. Learn about the case and its implications.
In a significant decision, ITAT Ahmedabad rules that a bonafide mistake in computing income tax does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. Full analysis here.
Read the full text of the ITAT Ahmedabad order regarding the penalty under Section 271 in the case of Harson Labs Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT for Assessment Year 2015-16.
