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 : 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 : The Committee recommends that the scope of Section 273B should be suitably enlarged to provide that penalty for concealment of inc...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh condones delay and remands Mukesh Mittal's penalty appeals back to CIT(A), citing a prior ITAT order that accepted...
Income Tax : Rajkot ITAT condones 98-day appeal filing delay, citing taxpayer's illiteracy and prior consultant's negligence, prioritizing subs...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that software expense has not given any benefit of enduring nature and hence the same is not capital in nature. Ac...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi has deleted a Rs. 96.62 lakh penalty imposed on Pawan Kumar Gupta, ruling that Section 271(1)(c) is not applicable ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Lucknow has restored the penalty case of UP State Bridge Corporation Ltd. to the Assessing Officer, aligning with the All...
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...
ITAT Chandigarh condones delay and remands Mukesh Mittal’s penalty appeals back to CIT(A), citing a prior ITAT order that accepted similar delay in quantum appeals. Case to be re-decided on merits.
Rajkot ITAT condones 98-day appeal filing delay, citing taxpayer’s illiteracy and prior consultant’s negligence, prioritizing substantial justice.
ITAT Delhi held that software expense has not given any benefit of enduring nature and hence the same is not capital in nature. Accordingly, software expense allowed as revenue expenditure.
The ITAT Delhi has deleted a Rs. 96.62 lakh penalty imposed on Pawan Kumar Gupta, ruling that Section 271(1)(c) is not applicable to additions based on estimated income.
The ITAT Lucknow has restored the penalty case of UP State Bridge Corporation Ltd. to the Assessing Officer, aligning with the Allahabad High Court’s directive to await quantum appeal outcomes.
Delhi HC ruled in Sahara India Life Insurance Co. case that Section 271(1)(c) penalty is invalid if notice fails to specify whether it pertains to income concealment or inaccurate particulars.
The Gujarat High Court invalidated a tax reopening notice against Hemanshu Ramniklal Shah, ruling it was based on a “change of opinion” rather than new material, after the original assessment was already scrutinized.
ITAT Delhi overturns Rs. 74 lakh penalty on Singh Consultancy. Notice ambiguity in Section 271(1)(c) proceedings deemed fatal, reinforcing clarity in tax charges.
Understand why an income-tax penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the charge isn’t specified as concealment or inaccurate particulars. Learn legal precedents and appeal strategies.
Learn how taxpayers can defer income tax penalty proceedings when quantum additions are under appeal. Understand legal grounds and precedents for abeyance to avoid premature penalties.
