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...
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.
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.
