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 Visakhapatnam ruled no penalty for voluntary income disclosure post-survey, rejecting AO’s concealment claims.
ITAT Mumbai deletes penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on estimated GP additions for alleged bogus purchases in Om Sai Traders case for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12.
ITAT Pune rules in Ramchandra Jadhavrao vs. ACIT that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) applies if income is declared in return post-survey.
ITAT Mumbai rules that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied on ad-hoc estimated income, dismissing Revenue’s appeal in ITO vs. Ashok Industrial Corporation.
ITAT Mumbai ruled on Dev Engineers Vs DCIT, deleting penalties under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAB. Additions were based on estimation, lacking evidence of concealment.
ITAT Chandigarh rules against penalty on estimated income in AKM Resorts vs ACIT, reinforcing that additions based on estimation don’t imply income concealment.
Bombay High Court affirms ITAT’s decision, upholding a penalty on Veena Estate under Section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate income disclosures in a real estate transaction.
ITAT Ahmedabad dismisses penalty for disallowance of deduction under section 80IA(4), ruling in favor of the assessee as a developer.
ITAT Mumbai rules that penalty cannot be maintained after assessment order is quashed, restoring a case to CIT(A) for fresh hearing.
ITAT Mumbai quashes penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for three assessees due to defective notices and debatable issues in light of Bombay High Court precedents.
