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...
ITAT Ahmedabad ruled that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying quantum addition has been remanded for fresh adjudication. The penalty order was restored to the CIT(A) to be decided only after the quantum appeal is finalized.
The Delhi High Court, in CIT v. Corteva Agriscience Pvt. Ltd., dismissed the Revenues appeals, confirming that penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
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’.
