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...
The High Court held that classification of grant-in-aid as capital or revenue is a debatable issue. It ruled that such classification disputes do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The issue involved validity of penalty proceedings initiated through an unsigned notice. The Tribunal ruled that such a notice is invalid and cannot confer jurisdiction. The decision highlights the mandatory requirement of proper authentication.
The case involved penalty for failure to respond to statutory notices during assessment. The Tribunal reduced the penalty after both parties agreed on a lower amount to resolve the dispute.
The case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of penalty due to lack of clarity in the notice.
The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal held that such vagueness invalidates the entire penalty proceedings.
The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimated additions do not establish concealment, hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unsustainable.
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings are invalid where the Assessing Officer does not specify whether the charge is concealment or inaccurate particulars. The penalty was quashed due to lack of clarity and inconsistency.
The Tribunal held that omission of taxable foreign exchange gain in the return attracts penalty. It noted that disclosure during assessment does not absolve liability. The ruling highlights importance of correct income reporting.
The court held that transfer pricing adjustments cannot automatically be treated as misreporting of income. Without evidence of deliberate concealment, penalty under Section 270A cannot be imposed.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where bogus purchase additions are made purely on an estimated basis. Estimated profit disallowances do not prove concealment without concrete evidence.
