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 : Tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years was not permissible where alleged escaped income was only ₹38 lakh. Since sta...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty was not justified where all relevant facts were disclosed in the return of income, audit report, an...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a penalty after finding that the show-cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb of Sect...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that unsecured loan additions could not be sustained where the assessee furnished confirmations, bank statemen...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT held that a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot survive without the Assessing Officer recor...
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...
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. […]
Advent Computer Services Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai) It is an admitted fact that assessee has not reported capital gain derived from transfer of equity shares in pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras for amalgamation of M/s. i Theories Business Factory India Pvt. Ltd., with the assessee company, even though […]
The issue under consideration is whether disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) made by AO forming an opinion that interest bearing funds were withdrawn from the firm being capital withdrawn by the partners and interest free advances is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether the assessee is correct in stating that cognizance taken under section 153A of the Act is illegal at the end of the A.O.?
