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 Pune quashes Section 271(1)(c) penalty on Intervalve Poonawalla for leave encashment disallowance, citing full disclosure and judicial precedents.
Bombay High Court rules penalty under Section 271(1)(c) not applicable for a disclosed and bona fide deduction claim, even if disallowed. Mere incorrect legal claim isn’t concealment.
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.
