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 Delhi affirms penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act against Amandeep Singh Sran for concealing income. Analysis of the case and its implications.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable in absence of any concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee.
Read the full text of the ITAT Delhi order in the case of DCIT vs. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank regarding penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
In a landmark decision, ITAT Delhi rules no penalty under 271(1)(c) for a bonafide assessee who revised and added interest income. Analysis of Pramila Tarneja Vs DCIT case.
ITAT Mumbai’s ruling on penalty for concealed income based on estimated additions. Analysis of case, legal arguments, and conclusion.
Analysis of ITAT Chennai decision on V.S.J. Marketing Pvt. Vs DCIT. ITAT upholds penalty for failure to furnish Return of Income as concealment of income.
DCIT Vs Milan Kavinchandra Parikh (ITAT Mumbai) Introduction: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai recently delivered a pivotal judgment in the case between the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) and Milan Kavinchandra Parikh. The judgment raises key questions surrounding the jurisdiction of penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This […]
ITAT Mumbai ruling in DCIT Vs Sai Sugam Enterprises. declares penalty notices under section 274 as invalid if not specifying charge against assessee.
ITAT Mumbai decides on the applicability of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) after disclosing concealed income under the IDS scheme.
ITAT Hyderabad held that law doesn’t permit delegation of authority by PCIT to Assessing Officer (AO) for the purpose of imposition of penalty. Accordingly, direction issued by PCIT to AO to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is unlawful.
