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...
Delhi HC ruled in Sahara India Life Insurance Co. case that Section 271(1)(c) penalty is invalid if notice fails to specify whether it pertains to income concealment or inaccurate particulars.
Understand why an income-tax penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the charge isn’t specified as concealment or inaccurate particulars. Learn legal precedents and appeal strategies.
Learn how taxpayers can defer income tax penalty proceedings when quantum additions are under appeal. Understand legal grounds and precedents for abeyance to avoid premature penalties.
ITAT Jaipur sets aside penalty under Section 271(1)(c) against Pradeep Garg, citing defective notice and lack of independent evidence from the department.
Delhi High Court dismisses Revenue appeal, upholding penalty cancellation on Genpact Services LLC over debated expense classification and vague penalty notice.
ITAT Surat cancels penalty on Sahajanand Medical for a depreciation claim error, stating Section 271(1)(c) doesn’t apply to honest mistakes with full disclosure.
Supreme Court overturns penalty on PwC for a genuine error in income tax return, noting clear disclosure in tax audit report negated intent to conceal.
Since the business sales were accepted as genuine and only the purchases were routed through accommodation entries, only a part of the purchases needed adjustment to reflect possible inflation of expenses confirming the restriction of bogus purchase addition to 5% and when additions were made on an estimated basis, penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed.
ITAT Delhi rules on penalty imposition for Vodafone West Ltd, concerning a debatable issue of interest on license fees.
ITAT Pune rules no penalty under section 271(1)(c) when a debatable legal issue exists, in the case of DCIT vs. Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav.
