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...
Jaipur ITAT dismisses Revenue’s appeals in Nath Corporation, Royal Jewellers, and Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal cases, deleting Rs. 3.3 crore in penalties.
ITAT Kolkata quashes S. 271(1)(c) penalty against Baidya Nath Dey (AY 2011-12). Penalty notice invalid as the AO failed to strike off the irrelevant limb, a defect confirmed by the Calcutta High Court.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that a penalty cannot be imposed on estimated additions from bogus purchases. Tribunal affirmed that without cogent evidence, estimated profits don’t warrant a penalty.
PCIT Vs Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Bombay High Court in PCIT vs Colo Colour Pvt. Ltd. examined the validity of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the context of alleged bogus purchases claimed by the assessee. The appeal arose from an order dated 31 July 2020 […]
The ITAT Kolkata quashed a penalty on a taxpayer, ruling that a one-time settlement from an employer was a capital receipt. The court held that no concealment of income occurred as the amount was disclosed in the tax return.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Cochin has ruled that voluntarily disclosing additional income after a search notice does not automatically justify a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The ITAT Ahmedabad has remanded a penalty case for Co.op Credit Society, directing the AO to pass a new order only after the related quantum appeal is finalized.
The Delhi High Court upheld the quashing of a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The court ruled that the penalty notice was invalid because it failed to specify whether the penalty was for ‘concealment of income’ or ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars’.
The ITAT has set aside a penalty order against a taxpayer, Murmu Pankaj Kumar, ruling it was premature as the core quantum appeal was still pending before the CIT(A).
The Delhi ITAT has quashed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling that an “omnibus” no-tice that failed to specify the charge against the taxpayer was invalid and showed non-application of mind.
