Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when errors are voluntarily corrected during assessment. ...
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 : The Committee recommends that the scope of Section 273B should be suitably enlarged to provide that penalty for concealment of inc...
Income Tax : The case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of pen...
Income Tax : The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. T...
Income Tax : The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimate...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded ₹95.81 lakh commission disallowance, holding that non-response to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justi...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income by introducing a new issue not examined by the Assessing Officer. The ruling cl...
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...
PCIT Vs Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Tribunal was required to consider, was: whether penalty could be imposed on the assessee only because it had made a new claim [in line with the change in its accounting policy] in its fresh return? Admittedly, [and there is no dispute about it] AS-7 permitted […]
Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble High Court was referred an issue ‘mere failure to tick mark the applicable grounds’ in the notice issued under Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) vitiate the entire penalty […]
ACIT Vs IKEA Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) We find that the assessee has sold assets at the WDV of the assets as per company law whereas the TPO held that the assessee ought to have sold the assets at the value of the WDV of the block of assets as per the Income […]
Rishabh Buildwell P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Once the assessee files a revised return under Section 1 53A, for all other provisions of the Act, the revised return will be treated as the original return filed under Section 139. For the Revenue to invoke Explanation-5, it would have to prove that its requirements are […]
Balee Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that on perusal of page 10 read with page 13 of the factual paper book filed by the assessee comprising of the profit and loss account for the year ended 31/03/2009 and the schedule for the other income thereon, the sum of Rs.3 Crores has […]
Jayant B Patel HUF Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) (a) No penalty under Explanation-5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied in respect of undisclosed income found in the course of search but which were duly returned by the assessee in the return filed u/s.153A of the Act together with compliance of other conditions […]
Delhi High Court has upheld the deletion of the penalty on the ground i.e. the fact that appeals were admitted proved that the issue was debatable.
ACIT Vs Kishangarh Hi Tech Textile Park Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur) Since the assessee has disclosed entire facts in the Balance Sheet with regard to the subsidy of Rs. 36.00 crores received by it and the depreciation at 80% on the entire windmill as a whole has been claimed on the basis of various decisions of […]
Shri Babuji Jacob Vs ITO (Madras High Court) Admittedly, all the amounts were received by the assessee through banking channels and he had mentioned about the same in his return of income. The only mistake done by the assessee was to treat both the lands as agricultural lands. Once the notice under Section 143(3) of […]
Fox Mandal & Co. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) It is an admitted fact that despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A), there was no compliance from the side of the assessee for which the Ld. CIT(A) was constrained to decide the appeal exparte and thereafter sustained the penalty levied by the AO u/s. […]
