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 deletes Section 270A penalty on Jaipur Telecom, ruling excess depreciation and TDS interest claims were bona fide errors, not misreporting.
Pune ITAT deletes Section 270A penalty on Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd., ruling non-disclosure of adjusted IT refund interest was an inadvertent error, not under-reporting.
Madras High Court rules that mere disallowance of a deduction does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai sets aside income tax penalties on an MTNL employee, citing no additions in reassessment and the discretionary nature of penalty imposition under Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A.
Bombay High Court dismisses revenue’s appeal, affirming that income tax penalty notices must clearly specify grounds of concealment or inaccurate particulars.
Calcutta High Court hears appeal on the validity of tax penalties under Section 271(1)(c), specifically if show-cause notices lacking specific grounds are invalid. The case involves the Thakur Prasad Sao Group.
Delhi ITAT set aside penalties against Delhi Building & Others for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09, citing the Assessing Officer’s failure to specify the charge under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
ITAT Surat deleted a Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Gunjan Agarwal, ruling that an addition based on estimated income does not automatically imply concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
ITAT Pune quashes Section 271(1)(c) penalty on Intervalve Poonawalla for leave encashment disallowance, citing full disclosure and judicial precedents.
Bombay High Court rules penalty under Section 271(1)(c) not applicable for a disclosed and bona fide deduction claim, even if disallowed. Mere incorrect legal claim isn’t concealment.
