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...
The Tribunal held that sanction for reopening was granted mechanically and without independent application of mind, as required under Section 151. An undated and non-speaking approval vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings.
The penalty was quashed as the Assessing Officer failed to strike off the inapplicable limb in the notice. Clear satisfaction and precise charge are mandatory for sustaining penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that when stamp duty value is disputed, the Assessing Officer must refer the matter to the DVO. Fair market value determination is mandatory before sustaining a Section 50C addition.
ITAT Mumbai held that where segmental accounts are not available, then proportionate adjustments have to be made only in respect of the international transactions with associated enterprises [AE]. Thus, TPO directed to compute the transfer pricing [TP] adjustment, restricting it to the international transactions undertaken with associated enterprises.
The Tribunal held that a penalty notice which does not specify the exact charge is invalid. Failure to strike off the irrelevant limb shows non-application of mind and vitiates penalty proceedings.
Taxing a debenture waiver as revenue income was challenged. The Tribunal rejected the approach, holding the waiver arose from capital financing and not trading operations. The ruling confirms that capital restructuring gains are not taxable by default.
The issue was whether a penalty can survive when the show cause notice fails to specify the exact charge. ITAT held that a vague notice violates law, making the entire penalty unsustainable.
The ITAT restored an ex-parte assessment where LTCG was added mechanically without hearing the taxpayer. The ruling reinforces that denial of natural justice vitiates capital gains assessments.
Applying settled law, the Tribunal held that penalties imposed after expiry of the limitation period are void. Both loan and repayment penalties were deleted across multiple years.
Mumbai ITAT held that unexplained bank credits are fully taxable under Section 68 when beneficiaries of accommodation entries are not identified. Mere claim of acting as an entry operator does not limit addition to commission income.
