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 : ITAT Delhi held penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unsustainable as 54F exemption failed due to builder delay, not taxpayer’s fault. Full dis...
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 : Recent Chennai ITAT decisions address unexplained income, underreporting, and penalties under Sections 69A, 68, 270A, and 271. Key...
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 : The court ruled that submitting revised returns showing higher income after a search does not wipe out earlier concealment. Crimin...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that simultaneous proceedings arising from reassessment and revision for the same year could lead to multiplici...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that merely because additions were sustained in quantum proceedings, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot au...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad refused to condone 632-day delay, dismissing appeal as time-barred, but quashed Section 271(1)(c) penalty for lack ...
Income Tax : The Court held that failure to comply with payment conditions under the 2020 Scheme automatically revived withdrawn revision petit...
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...
The court ruled that submitting revised returns showing higher income after a search does not wipe out earlier concealment. Criminal proceedings for wilful tax evasion and false statements remain maintainable.
The Tribunal ruled that simultaneous proceedings arising from reassessment and revision for the same year could lead to multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings. It restored the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for consolidated de-novo adjudication.
The ITAT Delhi held that merely because additions were sustained in quantum proceedings, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot automatically follow. The Revenue must independently prove concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
ITAT Hyderabad refused to condone 632-day delay, dismissing appeal as time-barred, but quashed Section 271(1)(c) penalty for lack of recorded satisfaction in assessment order.
The Court held that failure to comply with payment conditions under the 2020 Scheme automatically revived withdrawn revision petitions. This made the assessee eligible under the 2024 DTVSV Scheme.
ITAT Mumbai deleted ₹6.15 lakh penny stock LTCG addition, holding investigation report and abnormal price rise insufficient without direct evidence linking assessee to accommodation entries.
ITAT Mumbai observed that additions based solely on estimation do not establish concealment of income. Consequently, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted for both assessment years.
he Tribunal emphasized that assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct and strict proof of concealment is required. Estimated additions alone cannot justify penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where tax is ultimately levied under Section 115JB. Additions under normal provisions did not result in tax evasion.
ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive where bogus purchase additions are made purely on an estimated basis. Estimated profit disallowances do not prove concealment without concrete evidence.
