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...
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.
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.
