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 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.
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.
