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 ITAT has set aside a penalty order against a taxpayer, Murmu Pankaj Kumar, ruling it was premature as the core quantum appeal was still pending before the CIT(A).
The Delhi ITAT has quashed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), ruling that an “omnibus” no-tice that failed to specify the charge against the taxpayer was invalid and showed non-application of mind.
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.”
