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 High Court held that jewellery seized during a search cannot be retained once tax liability is fully settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Continued detention after issuance of Form-5 was declared illegal.
The tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied where income admitted during survey is duly declared in the return and accepted in assessment. The key takeaway is that absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars bars penalty, even if disclosure arose from a survey.
The issue was whether reassessment could proceed without disposing of objections to recorded reasons. The Court held that failure to decide objections vitiates the entire reassessment.
The Assessing Officer imposed penalty after treating disclosed capital gains as business income. The Tribunal ruled that classification disputes, without suppression of facts, cannot justify penalty.
The issue was whether an appeal can be rejected without first considering condonation of delay. The Tribunal held that dismissal without condoning delay is invalid and requires fresh adjudication.
The issue was confirmation of penalty without reasons. The Tribunal held that a non-speaking appellate order violates law and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Mumbai held that artificial profits or losses arising from Client Code Modification in share transactions carried out in F&O segment requires transaction-wise reconciliation. Accordingly, matter restore to the file of AO.
The ITAT held that penalty cannot be imposed where a capital loss claim was voluntarily withdrawn during assessment. Since no tax benefit was availed, the case did not attract section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment was time-barred because limitation was wrongly computed from the search date. The key takeaway is that receipt of seized material governs jurisdiction for non-searched persons.
The issue was whether reassessment becomes invalid when the return is filed on the same day as the assessment order. The Tribunal held that such belated filing cannot nullify a best-judgment reassessment.
