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 held that recording of satisfaction for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not sustained.
Balwant Baburao Vitekar (Late) vs ITO (ITAT Pune) where the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was challenged. The appeal was allowed on the grounds that the assessee was not given the opportunity to assist in the penalty proceedings.
ITAT Delhi held that if a matter is restored to AO for passing a rectification order, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act does not survive. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the penalty order.
ITAT Delhi’s verdict in the case of Gawar Constructions Co. Vs DCIT, illuminating the importance of clear particulars in the imposition of tax penalties. Understand how discrepancies between the initial ‘satisfaction’ and the grounds for penalty can lead to quashing of penalty orders.
ITAT, held that if assessee voluntarily declares income during a survey and later includes it in their regular income tax return, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed.
ITAT Pune held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act duly leviable in case the additional income is disclosed in ITR filed u/s 153A and such additional income is originated out of seized material.
ITAT Jaipur held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as addition made on account of meager amount and on account of difference of opinion only.
ITAT Delhi deletes penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income/filing inaccurate particulars in Babita Khurana vs DCIT case. Detailed analysis and ruling provided.
M.A. Projects Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITAT note that the notice is an omnibus notice without specifying the specific charge upon the assessee and in such circumstances, Higher Courts have held that penalty levied is not sustainable. In this regard, we refer to Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the […]
Voluntary Income declared by assessee on its own i.e. without any detection cannot be considered as equivalent to providing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of Income
