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 an ex parte assessment involving large unexplained bank credits required fresh adjudication. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer with one final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that no interest disallowance can be made when ample interest-free funds are available. The key takeaway is that diversion cannot be presumed without establishing a nexus with borrowed funds.
The ITAT held that reassessment proceedings remain valid even if no separate addition is made on the original reopening issue. The key lesson is that voluntary disclosure by the assessee satisfies the reopening requirement.
The Tribunal held that a one-day delay in depositing employees’ PF caused by proven payment gateway failure constitutes impossibility of performance. Genuine attempts and evidence justified allowing the deduction despite strict timelines.
Delhi High Court held that Dispute Resolution Panel [DRP] cannot merely approve the conclusion of TPO without giving independent findings. Accordingly, writ dismissed as no substantial question arise in the petition.
The Tribunal ruled that dismissing appeals in limine without examining reasons for delay was improper. It restored the matters for fresh consideration, stressing that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive justice.
ITAT Delhi held that foreign company receiving consideration for offshore supply of equipment, plant, designs and drawings is not taxable in India since entire transaction has taken place outside India.
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying addition is purely estimated. The ruling reinforces that estimation alone does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
Since the statutory notice under section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer, the assessment collapsed. The ruling affirms that valid notice by the competent authority is a sine qua non.
The Tribunal examined whether a penalty could survive despite an allegedly vague notice. It held that since the assessment order and later notices clearly specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty was valid.
