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...
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.
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.
