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 Tribunal held that a penalty notice lacking clarity on whether it relates to concealment or inaccurate particulars is invalid....
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 : 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...
ITAT Delhi held In the case of M/s. Mohair Investment and Trading Company (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT that it is clear that the present issue, related to application of section 14A, especially in relation to shares held as trading assets
In the case of Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya vs ACIT, ITAT Kolkata held that although the satisfaction need not be recorded in a particular manner but from a reading of the assessment order as a whole such satisfaction should be clearly discernible.
ITAT held in Pooja Industries Vs ITO that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied only because that the assessee had wrongly claimed deduction u/s 80IC @ 100% instead of deduction u/s 80IB. Penalty could only be levied only
Assessing Officer added last amount of short term capital gains to the tune of Rs. 54,67,547/- under section 50 of the Act. This comprised of a sum of Rs. 4,86,650/- qua factory building and Rs. 49,80,897/- relating to plant and machinery.
ITAT Pune held in Mrs Sarita Manjeet Singh Chopra Vs ITO that if the assesse had disclosed its unaccounted income filing return u/s 153A only after it was caught in search by the income tax department then that disclosed income through return would be considered as undisclosed income
In the case of ACIT Vs. Dr. Nitin Laxmikant Lad Pune Bench of ITAT have held that where assessee had furnished original return of income in which he had not declared its receipts from the profession, but pursuant to the search and seizure operation, certain incriminating documents were seized
ITAT New Delhi held In the case of Tristar Intech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) there should be concealment of income on the part of assessee. In the given case AO has initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c)
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of Shri Hafeez S Contractor vs. ACIT that penalty u/s 271(1) (c) cannot be imposed in those cases where no specific charges are mentioned in penalty notice. In the given case the AO has not specified that as to which limb the notice was issued
Mumbai ITAT held In the case of M/s Parinee Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT that the concealment penalty levied by the CIT (A) in this case is on the issues which are not free from debate. In our opinion, the assessee would have got relief in most of issues relating to additions based on the estimations
ITAT held in ACIT Vs Ms Shyam Basic that if the assessee had made a wrong claim in the return of income but had furnished full particulars in its return of income then it would not amount to concealment if income and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied.
