Finance : Learn about Section 270A introduced in Finance Act 2016, effective from April 1, 2017, outlining penalties for under-reporting and...
Income Tax : Explore why penalties should not be imposed on estimated income, supported by legal rulings and principles ensuring fair tax admin...
Income Tax : Discover the implications of Income Tax Act Section 270A and penalties for under-reporting or misreporting income. Learn calculati...
Income Tax : Learn about the penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act of 1961 for various defaults and offenses. Find out the fines ...
Income Tax : Apart from penalty for various defaults, the Income-tax Act also contains provisions for launching prosecution proceedings against...
Income Tax : When an assessee voluntarily discloses income and the assessment is based on this disclosure without any changes, imposing a penal...
Income Tax : Penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed based on estimated additions without concrete evidence of concealment or inacc...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai removes penalty imposed on Sunil Bhagwandas Vorani (HUF) as addition was made on estimation basis, not due to concealm...
Income Tax : Delhi HC: No penalty for New Holland Tractors if assessee's contention was plausible and bona fide, provided full disclosure of fa...
Income Tax : Read the detailed analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad's order canceling penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Co-owner sta...
Read the full text of the ITAT Delhi order in the case of DCIT vs. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank regarding penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
In a landmark decision, ITAT Delhi rules no penalty under 271(1)(c) for a bonafide assessee who revised and added interest income. Analysis of Pramila Tarneja Vs DCIT case.
ITAT Mumbai’s ruling on penalty for concealed income based on estimated additions. Analysis of case, legal arguments, and conclusion.
Analysis of ITAT Chennai decision on V.S.J. Marketing Pvt. Vs DCIT. ITAT upholds penalty for failure to furnish Return of Income as concealment of income.
DCIT Vs Milan Kavinchandra Parikh (ITAT Mumbai) Introduction: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai recently delivered a pivotal judgment in the case between the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) and Milan Kavinchandra Parikh. The judgment raises key questions surrounding the jurisdiction of penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This […]
ITAT Mumbai ruling in DCIT Vs Sai Sugam Enterprises. declares penalty notices under section 274 as invalid if not specifying charge against assessee.
ITAT Mumbai decides on the applicability of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) after disclosing concealed income under the IDS scheme.
ITAT Hyderabad held that law doesn’t permit delegation of authority by PCIT to Assessing Officer (AO) for the purpose of imposition of penalty. Accordingly, direction issued by PCIT to AO to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is unlawful.
Ashvin Narayan Bajoria (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Surat) Recently the SMC Bench of Surat Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed a judgement in the aforementioned case deleting the penalty levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The central point of discussion was whether or not penalty imposed […]
Read the full text of ITAT Ahmedabad’s order deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Dineshkumar Kanjibhai Patel-HUF as no concealment of particulars or inaccurate income filing found.
