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 ruled that penalty under Section 270A cannot survive when income is assessed purely on estimated gross profit after rejecting books. Additions based on estimation do not amount to under-reporting or misreporting of income.
Since the reassessment itself was quashed, the addition treating long-term capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 automatically failed. Jurisdictional defects were fatal to the assessment.
The tribunal deleted penalty where the quantum addition was restricted to an estimated profit element. It held that penalty cannot survive without a clear finding of concealment.
The issue was whether reassessment survives when no addition is made on the reasons recorded for reopening. The Tribunal held that such reopening is invalid, making the entire reassessment unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority decided the case without proper hearing and remanded the issue of section 54F deduction for fresh examination of additional evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the appellate order after finding that the appeal was not adjudicated on merits. The matter was remanded to ensure proper consideration after granting adequate opportunity of hearing.
Reopenings based on assumptions, conjecture, or generalized allegations were struck down. The ruling reiterates that reasons must show tangible material, application of mind, and a live nexus with escaped income.
The dispute concerned whether transfer through a release deed amounted to a taxable sale and justified loss claims. The Tribunal remanded the matter, directing verification of books to examine the genuineness of the claimed loss.
The issue was whether penalty could survive after the assessment order was set aside. The Tribunal held that once the basis of the addition is extinguished, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal examined whether the AO formed an independent belief before reopening. Finding verbatim reasons and rubber-stamp approval, it set aside the reassessment and consequential penalty.
