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...
Delhi High Court held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act not leviable as error pointed out by AO was corrected by the assessee before passing of the assessment order.
Dinesh Sitaram Patil Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) We note that, while culminating the reassessment proceeding in the case of the assessee, the Ld. AO vide concluding para placed at page 4 of his order communicated the assessee his action of initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Act for ‘under reporting / mis-reporting’ of income […]
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.
