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 : Tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years was not permissible where alleged escaped income was only ₹38 lakh. Since sta...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty was not justified where all relevant facts were disclosed in the return of income, audit report, an...
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 : 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 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.
The assessment u/s 143(3) made disallowing to excess claim of depreciation. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated on disallowance of excess depreciation claimed. The assessee confronted this fact, He is agree to disallow excess depreciation. No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is levied upon the assessee. The Department can not presume that the assessee has concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars income in the return of income.
ITAT Ahmedabad held in Sohan Builders Vs ACIT that if the AO had assessed the income of the assessee at some higher percentage than what the assessee had already shown in the computation then it would not amount to the concealment of income,
The ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Ruchi Developers vs. ITO, where Assessee has failed to produce creditor parties in respect of alleged Bogus Purchases while he submitted all other details and evidences and additions been made,
In the case of M/s Kantilal Siyaram vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad), the assessee has claimed that advance tax was paid, which was not recorded in the original return on the income which was remained to be disclosed in original return.
