Income Tax : Recent Chennai ITAT decisions address unexplained income, underreporting, and penalties under Sections 69A, 68, 270A, and 271. Key...
Income Tax : Discover penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, including default conditions, quantum of penalties, and potent...
Income Tax : Explore why penalties should not be imposed on estimated income, supported by legal rulings and principles ensuring fair tax admin...
Income Tax : Discover the implications of Income Tax Act Section 270A and penalties for under-reporting or misreporting income. Learn calculati...
Income Tax : Grounds of Appeal related to the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act , 1961 AY 2015-16 1. In the facts and circumstances of t...
Income Tax : The Committee recommends that the scope of Section 273B should be suitably enlarged to provide that penalty for concealment of inc...
Income Tax : Since the business sales were accepted as genuine and only the purchases were routed through accommodation entries, only a part of...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi rules on penalty imposition for Vodafone West Ltd, concerning a debatable issue of interest on license fees....
Income Tax : ITAT Pune rules no penalty under section 271(1)(c) when a debatable legal issue exists, in the case of DCIT vs. Vinod Ramchandra J...
Income Tax : Assessee-a government-owned entity, had initially filed its income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17, declaring nil incom...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that concealment of income via bogus share capital transaction duly attracts levy of penalty under section 271(1)(...
Income Tax : Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) inter alia provides that w.e.f. 1 st April, 2017, the Assessing Officer, on an...
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.
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.
This is a peculiar case wherein assessee has declared as a single owner and sold the property, however purchased two properties and registered one property in the name of his mother on the basis of inheritance.
The petitioner filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 24 November 2014 which was subsequently revised on two occasions namely on 17 March 2016 and 25 March 2016 which was further modified on 29 November 2016.
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 Mumbai cancels penalty on Smita Ashok Thakkar citing invalid notice under Section 271(1)(c) due to non-striking of relevant limb in penalty notice.
