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 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 : The Tribunal found no distinguishing factors between the assessee and another liquor trader whose GP rate of 3.13% had been accept...
Income Tax : The assessee argued that payment of advance tax demonstrated absence of concealment. The High Court held that a subsequent conscio...
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...
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.
The Tribunal clarified that dismissal of an SLP does not amount to declaration of law under Article 141. It distinguished prior rulings and held that defective penalty notices invalidate the levy.
It was ruled that approval under Section 151 granted mechanically, with contradictory stands taken by the authority, vitiates the reopening. The reassessment was set aside for lack of proper application of mind.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when income is determined on an estimated basis. In absence of clear concealment, the Rs.5.41 lakh penalty was deleted.
The Bombay High Court held that a pending penalty appeal qualifies as a “dispute” under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Rejection solely for absence of assessment appeal was set aside
ITAT Mumbai held that balancing figure between the slump sale consideration and the value of identifiable tangible assets represents goodwill or commercial rights in the nature of an intangible asset, and depreciation thereon is allowable under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal observed that the AO disallowed 50% of warranty provisions and 25% of liabilities without justification. It held that in absence of specific defects in remand proceedings, such ad hoc disallowances cannot survive.
With the Section 50C addition and 54F disallowance deleted, the Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not survive. It emphasized that penalty cannot stand when the underlying additions are removed.
