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...
Assessee-a government-owned entity, had initially filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17, declaring nil income after setting off carried-forward losses and reported book profits of Rs. 26.90 crore under the MAT provisions of Section 115JB.
ITAT Delhi held that concealment of income via bogus share capital transaction duly attracts levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed and penalty upheld.
Understand penalties for under-reporting or misreporting income under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. Fines range from 50% to 200% of tax due.
ITAT Pune held that non-inclusion of disallowance u/s. 43B while filing income tax return is bona fide and inadvertent error. Accordingly, imposition of penalty under section 270A for bona fide mistake without intent to evade payment of tax is not justifiable.
ITAT Pune rules AO failed to justify penalty under Section 270A, citing lack of clear misreporting by assessee for AYs 2017–18 and 2018–19.
ITAT Rajkot cancels penalty on Anil Odedara, ruling income was estimated and not grounds for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai deleted a penalty, citing a defective notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c), following the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh.
ITAT Pune sets aside penalty on Kishor Patil under Section 270A, citing lack of clarity in notice and non-specification of misreporting conditions.
ITAT Mumbai cancels penalty on Smita Ashok Thakkar citing invalid notice under Section 271(1)(c) due to non-striking of relevant limb in penalty notice.
ITAT Mumbai cancels Section 271(1)(c) penalties on Lyka Labs Ltd for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 due to procedural defect in the penalty notices.
