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 rules on penalty imposition for Vodafone West Ltd, concerning a debatable issue of interest on license fees.
ITAT Pune rules no penalty under section 271(1)(c) when a debatable legal issue exists, in the case of DCIT vs. Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav.
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.
