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...
The ITAT Kolkata deleted a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), finding that an assessee’s retracted admission during a search was not supported by incriminating material.
The ITAT Delhi has ruled that no penalty can be sustained on estimated income, deleting the penalty levied on an individual for discrepancies found in his Form 26AS.
The ITAT Mumbai ruled that a penalty cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. The case of Khodiyar Impex vs. ITO clarified that a 3% disallowance on alleged bogus purchases doesn’t constitute concealment of income.
The Mumbai ITAT quashed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) against Ideal Energy Projects, citing that merely claiming a deduction is not furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Delhi ITAT has ruled that a penalty cannot be imposed when income is based on estimation. It deleted penalties on a taxpayer where cash deposits were assessed as estimated business profits, not unexplained income.
The Calcutta High Court invalidates a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) because the show-cause notice failed to specify whether the charge was for concealing or furnishing inaccurate income particulars.
Calcutta High Court dismisses PCIT appeal, ruling penalty notice under Income Tax Act invalid due to failure to specify contravention, citing judicial precedents.
ITAT Delhi deleted penalties against Sahara India Commercial, citing a defective “omnibus” notice and a time-barred, invalid reassessment based on “borrowed satisfaction.”
ITAT Delhi set aside a Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Kissan Petro Oils Pvt Ltd, as all underlying additions were deleted by the ITAT and claims were based on a CA-certified audit report.
Pune ITAT deletes penalties under Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A for Sunil Chunilal Kumavat, citing non-specification of charges and reliance on Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh.
