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...
Ashvin Narayan Bajoria (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) Recently the SMC Bench of Surat Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed a judgement in the aforementioned case deleting the penalty levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The central point of discussion was whether or not penalty imposed […]
Read the full text of ITAT Ahmedabad’s order deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Dineshkumar Kanjibhai Patel-HUF as no concealment of particulars or inaccurate income filing found.
Explore the ITAT Delhi’s ruling in the Sheetal Mehra vs ITO case, where an inconsistent application of penalty led to its deletion.
Read about the ITAT Mumbai ruling in DCIT Vs Knight Riders Sports Pvt Ltd, where penalty is cancelled due to deleted additions in quantum appeal.
Read the full text of the ITAT Chennai order in the case of Edward Sam Vs ITO. Penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) are analyzed in light of quantum additions made using peak credit theory
Delhi ITAT removes penalty on Riyasat Palaces Limited in tax dispute with ACIT, redefining interpretation of inaccurate particulars.
Delhi High Court supports Valley Iron & Steel Co.’s voluntary enhancement of disallowance under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. Detailed analysis and implications here.
ITAT Mumbai rules that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not leviable on estimated additions. The decision is based on the principle established in previous judgments.
In a significant ruling, ITAT Ahmedabad relieves an assessee from penalties due to accountant’s mistake. Full review of Dharmendrakumar B Mehta Vs ITO case here.
In-depth analysis of the recent Delhi High Court judgement in PCLT Vs Gopal Kumar Goyal, leading to a quashed 300% penalty imposed by the AO due to lack of clear indication on violation of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
