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...
Since quantum appeal itself is being quashed, penalty levied as against reassessment order for furnishing inaccurate particulars has no legs to stand and same is liable to be quashed.
Sawailal Bhatti Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) ITAT find that the assessee had filed all the details of purchases and corresponding sales had not been doubted. The sources of purchases are from the books and overall trading results have been accepted. Only allegation is that assessee has taken accommodation bills for the purchase of items to […]
Read about Ansal Properties vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) case. Penalty not sustainable on QIP and 80-IB disallowance. Full text of ITAT Delhi order
ITAT Kolkata held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as computation of income resulting into higher income is only a difference of opinion.
ITAT Delhi held that imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on a highly debatable issue is unsustainable in law.
In the present case, the very addition in the declared income has been deleted by the Tribunal therefore, there is no foundation to compute the penalty upon the assessee. In view of the deletion of the additions in the quantum appeal, no penalty is imposable upon the assessee.
Penalty order did not specify the charge & penalty was imposed purely on the basis of estimation of income so not valid
ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as assessee claimed the deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, with respect to the interest income under a bonafide belief.
ITAT held that when the notices issued by the AO are bad in law being vague and ambiguous having not specified under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are not sustainable.
ITAT Hyderabad in case of excess stock of gold found during survey held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act up to 100% of the tax evaded is justified instead of 298% as upheld by CIT(A).
