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 : Apart from penalty for various defaults, the Income-tax Act also contains provisions for launching prosecution proceedings against...
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 Ahmedabad held that restriction of addition to Rs. 1.45 crore from Rs. 9 crore towards unexplained cash credit on account of ...
Income Tax : Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as AO had not demonstrated any falsehood in the particulars provided by assesse...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai quashes penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 271A for AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 in the Srinivasan Chandrasekara case, cit...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad deletes penalty on Shree Gunatit Jyot Mahila Trust for a bona fide error in deduction claim on building constructio...
Income Tax : ITAT Jaipur held that there was short gap between three notices issued as say the opportunities granted hence it a fit case were o...
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 Ahmedabad held that restriction of addition to Rs. 1.45 crore from Rs. 9 crore towards unexplained cash credit on account of share application money by CIT(A) justified as the same was based on evidences.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable as AO had not demonstrated any falsehood in the particulars provided by assessee. Mere making a claim that was not legally sustainable did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by assessee.
ITAT Chennai quashes penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 271A for AY 2012-13 to 2016-17 in the Srinivasan Chandrasekara case, citing legal deficiencies.
Discover penalties and prosecutions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, including default conditions, quantum of penalties, and potential legal consequences.
ITAT Ahmedabad deletes penalty on Shree Gunatit Jyot Mahila Trust for a bona fide error in deduction claim on building construction expenses.
ITAT Jaipur held that there was short gap between three notices issued as say the opportunities granted hence it a fit case were one more opportunity should be granted in the proceedings before CIT(A), to enable the assessee to represent his appeals.
ITAT Raipur held that penalty imposed under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act unjustified when an assessment has been completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad condoned delay of 326 days in filing quantum appeal and delay of 1 day in filing penalty appeal as assessee demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay.
ITAT Raipur held that law will help only those who are vigilant and will not assist the one who are careless. Accordingly, request of assessee to restore matter back not granted as assessee has chosen not to represent its matter for more than 08 years.
ITAT Raipur held that CIT(A) deleted the addition towards unexplained cash under section 68 of the Income Tax Act without proper verification of the facts and evidences and thus the matter restored back to the file of AO for adequate verifications.
