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 Delhi set aside a Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Kissan Petro Oils Pvt Ltd, as all underlying additions were deleted by the ITAT and claims were based on a CA-certified audit report.
Pune ITAT deletes penalties under Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A for Sunil Chunilal Kumavat, citing non-specification of charges and reliance on Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh.
Jaipur ITAT deletes Section 270A penalty on Jaipur Telecom, ruling excess depreciation and TDS interest claims were bona fide errors, not misreporting.
Pune ITAT deletes Section 270A penalty on Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd., ruling non-disclosure of adjusted IT refund interest was an inadvertent error, not under-reporting.
Madras High Court rules that mere disallowance of a deduction does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Mumbai sets aside income tax penalties on an MTNL employee, citing no additions in reassessment and the discretionary nature of penalty imposition under Sections 271(1)(c) and 270A.
Bombay High Court dismisses revenue’s appeal, affirming that income tax penalty notices must clearly specify grounds of concealment or inaccurate particulars.
Calcutta High Court hears appeal on the validity of tax penalties under Section 271(1)(c), specifically if show-cause notices lacking specific grounds are invalid. The case involves the Thakur Prasad Sao Group.
Delhi ITAT set aside penalties against Delhi Building & Others for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09, citing the Assessing Officer’s failure to specify the charge under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
ITAT Surat deleted a Section 271(1)(c) penalty against Gunjan Agarwal, ruling that an addition based on estimated income does not automatically imply concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
