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 Delhi held that a concealment penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained where the addition is based on estimation of gross profit. The penalty was accordingly deleted.
The article explains how offences such as wilful tax evasion, failure to file returns, non-payment of TDS/TCS, falsification of records, and non-compliance with tax notices can trigger prosecution under the Income-tax Act.
The Bangalore ITAT held that ambiguity in the penalty proceedings rendered the levy unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized strict compliance with the statutory framework under Section 270A.
This article outlines major offences under the Income-tax Act that may result in prosecution, including tax evasion, non-payment of TDS/TCS, and furnishing false statements. It also highlights exceptions and safeguards available in certain situations.
The ITAT held that penalty for misreporting of income cannot be levied when the underlying addition is based merely on estimation of profit. Estimated additions do not establish deliberate concealment or misreporting.
The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a penalty after finding that the show-cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb of Section 271(1)(c). The ruling reiterates that an ambiguous penalty notice can invalidate penalty proceedings.
The assessee argued that payment of advance tax demonstrated absence of concealment. The High Court held that a subsequent conscious claim of exemption and refund amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars, attracting penalty.
The issue involved penalty on disallowance of lease premium deduction. The Tribunal held that admission of the issue by the High Court made it debatable. It ruled that penalty cannot be imposed in such cases.
The Supreme Court held that mere differences in property valuation do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires proof of deliberate inaccuracy. The ruling clarifies that estimation disputes alone cannot justify penalty.
The Supreme Court upheld deletion of penalty where the dispute involved classification of subsidy as capital or revenue receipt. It ruled that such debatable issues do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The decision reinforces limits on penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
