Income Tax : Discover the implications of Income Tax Act Section 270A and penalties for under-reporting or misreporting income. Learn calculati...
Income Tax : Learn about the penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act of 1961 for various defaults and offenses. Find out the fines ...
Income Tax : Apart from penalty for various defaults, the Income-tax Act also contains provisions for launching prosecution proceedings against...
Income Tax : Apart from levy of penalty for various defaults by the taxpayer, the Income-tax Law also contains provisions for launching prosecu...
Income Tax : Arjuna, while playing on the Football Ground if, a player pushes other players or creates any obstruction then the referee whistle...
Income Tax : Delhi HC: No penalty for New Holland Tractors if assessee's contention was plausible and bona fide, provided full disclosure of fa...
Income Tax : Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad's order canceling penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Co-owner sta...
Income Tax : xplore DCIT Vs Polyplex Corp. Limited case. Learn why penalty for disallowed tax claim isn't justified. Details & key takeaways he...
Income Tax : Can penalty under Section 271(1)(c) be imposed if self-assessment tax was paid before notice u/s 148? Read the detailed analysis o...
Income Tax : Tribunal ruled that mere disallowance of expenses or enhancement of returned income does not automatically warrant the imposition ...
ITAT Mumbai held in Supertech Construction Company Vs ACIT that penalty notice lacked clarity on grounds for penalty & penalties cannot be levied on additions made on Estimated Bogus Purchase Addition.
Read the full text of ITAT Delhi’s order in Orient Clothing Co. vs. ACIT. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) deleted due to vague notices. Analysis and implications discussed.
ITAT Delhi cancels penalty under section 271(1)(c) in Identity Wellness Centre case. Displacement of fair market value supported by valuation report by AO.
Bombay High Court held that if an irrelevant matter is not struck off in the notice, it indicates the AO’s uncertainty regarding the basis for imposing the penalty. Such ambiguity implies non-application of mind, rendering the notice invalid.
Explore the case of Pr. CIT vs Ansal Properties: Penalty notice invalidated due to ambiguity in specifying Section 271(1)(c) limb for penalty proceedings.
Explore the Karnataka High Court’s ruling on penalty notices under Income Tax Act in CIT vs SSA’s Emerald Meadows. Learn about specificity requirements and key findings.
Delhi High Court’s ruling in Pr. CIT vs Sahara India Life Insurance Co. clarifies Section 44, emphasizes specificity in penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c).
Delhi High Court judgment on PCIT vs GoDaddy: Assessee succeeds in quantum appeal, penalty deleted. Analysis of legal tenability and implications under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Explore the confusion surrounding Section 271(1)(c) penalty in PCIT Vs Modi Rubber Ltd. (Delhi High Court). Lack of clarity on concealment or inaccurate particulars raises questions.
Explore the Delhi High Court’s judgment in PCIT Vs Unitech Reliable Projects regarding Section 271(1)(c) penalties. The court emphasizes the necessity of specifying the relevant limb in penalty proceedings.
