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...
ITAT Pune cancels Section 270A penalty against Kasat Prakash M (HUF) due to non-specification of legal grounds in AO’s notice under the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Pune cancels penalties under Section 270A due to procedural lapses in AO’s notices, citing failure to specify relevant clauses of misreporting.
ITAT Pune removes Section 270A penalties due to defect in penalty notice lacking reference to specific misreporting clause. Appeals allowed for two assessment years.
ITAT Pune deletes Section 270A penalty on salaried assessee due to lack of specific clause in penalty notice and reliance on tax consultant’s actions.
ITAT Surat rules no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) if income is assessed on estimate. Penalty deleted as disallowances were based on turnover estimation.
ITAT Ahmedabad allows appeal despite 1607-day delay citing medical hardship. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) questioned over income assessment.
ITAT Ahmedabad cancels penalty on I-Serve Systems as disallowance was based on estimation without proof of concealment or inaccurate income details.
ITAT Surat rules penalty under Section 271(1)(c) not sustainable where income addition is based on estimation of bogus purchases.
ITAT Ahmedabad rules no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when income addition is based on estimation. Case details of Maruti Infrastructure Ltd. Vs DCIT explained.
ITAT Visakhapatnam sets aside penalty on Malla Appalaraju under Section 271(1)(c) due to a defective notice, ruling it void ab initio.
