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 held in the case of Meera Anirudha Mirgunde Vs ITO that when there is no variation in the returned and assessable income, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is not leviable.
Read the full text of the order of ITAT Jaipur in the case of Lalit Kumar Kalwar Vs ITO. The quantum appeal is allowed, and the deduction under Section 54F is granted, resulting in the penalty being vacated.
The ITAT Delhi nullifies the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on Meena Singhal, as the notice issued did not specify the particular charge.
ITAT Pune has set aside an NFAC order in the Kongnoli Sarva Seva Society Ltd vs ITO case. The ruling established that incorrect claims of deductions or expenses in ITR does not equate to the concealment of income
The ITAT in Mumbai cancels penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in the case of Fancy Diamonds India Pvt Ltd. The tribunal held that such penalties aren’t applicable when additions are made purely on estimation
In the case of N.B. Builders & Promoters (P) Ltd Vs CIT, ITAT Chandigarh held that penalties cannot be imposed for mere lower gross profit based on assumptions and conjectures.
Detailed analysis of the ITAT Delhi judgement in Kamlesh Gupta Vs DCIT case where the tribunal ruled that addition made on estimated profit does not constitute concealment, hence, no penalty.
Read about the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision to allow a writ petition challenging a penalty order that violated the principles of natural justice. Get a comprehensive analysis of the case and its implications.
ITAT Delhi holds in the Sabharwal Food Industries Vs DCIT case that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied simply because a claim was not accepted. Discover more about this landmark ruling.
Comprehensive analysis of the ITAT Delhi’s decision in Gulab Impex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, affirming that mere acceptance of disallowance does not necessarily constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
