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 holds in the Sabharwal Food Industries Vs DCIT case that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied simply because a claim was not accepted. Discover more about this landmark ruling.
Comprehensive analysis of the ITAT Delhi’s decision in Gulab Impex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT, affirming that mere acceptance of disallowance does not necessarily constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
A deep dive into ITAT Mumbai’s ruling in I.G. International Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, underscoring the importance of unambiguous notices under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In Sunrise Broking P. Ltd. Vs ITO, ITAT Ahmedabad abolishes penalty over additions made to interest on income tax refund, recognizing no concealment or inaccuracy in the income particulars.
An in-depth look at the ITAT Dehradun ruling in Saraswati Dynamics Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, highlighting the importance of specifying the grounds for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Explore how the tribunal’s decision impacts tax jurisprudence
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not leviable as mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
A comprehensive analysis of the landmark ITAT Delhi case, Sushila Goyal Vs ITO, highlighting the tribunal’s stance on penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when additions are made on an estimated basis.
ITAT Ahmedabad case between Standard Radiators Pvt Ltd and ACIT, involving an inaccurate income penalty dispute related to interest expense misclassification
ITAT Jaipur in Yogendra Khandelwal Vs ACIT, mandates re-adjudication for penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) without adequate hearing.
ITAT Ahmedabad has ruled that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not applicable when an assessee doesn’t furnish inaccurate income details. This ruling was made in the case of Khanpur Vibhag Madhyamik Shala Karmchari Dhiran & Grahak Sahakari Mandali Limited Vs ACIT
