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...
The Tribunal observed that when a foundational jurisdictional issue exists, dismissal on limitation without examining merits is unsustainable. The reassessment and all consequential penalties were accordingly quashed.
The Tribunal upheld penalty for non-filing of return under Explanation 3 but ruled that computation must reduce TDS and self-assessment tax paid before notice. Penalty was reduced from Rs. 8.56 lakh to Rs. 85,992.
The Tribunal held that failure to provide opportunity to cross-examine foreign information sources amounted to violation of natural justice. Additions based on unverified documents were therefore invalid.
ITAT Delhi held that notice under Section 148 issued before obtaining mandatory approval under Section 151 is invalid. Since sanction was granted after issuance of notice, the reassessment was declared void ab initio.
The Tribunal confirmed the jurisdictional validity of reassessment based on new information. However, the addition was restored to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and Section 250(6).
The Tribunal held that failure to indicate the precise charge in a Section 274 notice renders penalty proceedings unsustainable. Following jurisdictional High Court rulings, the penalty was set aside.
ITAT Mumbai held that securitisation trusts, cannot be assessed as an AOP, are revocable within the meaning of section 63 of the Income Tax Act and hence income is not taxable in the hands of trust. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld disallowance of political donation deductions where the assessee failed to prove genuineness and the transactions were linked to suspected accommodation entries. The ruling reinforces the burden on taxpayers to substantiate claims under section 80GGC with credible evidence.
The High Court ruled that penalty proceedings arising from search and initiated in assessment are governed by appeal-linked limitation rules. A penalty passed within six months from receipt of the tribunal order was held valid.
Additions under Sections 68 and 69C were set aside after the Tribunal found the mandatory approval to be a mere formality. The ruling reinforces that Section 153D approval is not a procedural ritual.
