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 issue was whether screen-based stock exchange trades can be ignored due to alleged exit providers. The Tribunal ruled that non-response of buyers and weak financials of counterparties do not invalidate genuine exchange-routed transactions.
The Tribunal examined suspicion surrounding a large cash advance for property. It ruled that suspicion alone cannot replace evidence, and once the transaction is substantiated, section 68 addition must be deleted.
The Tribunal held that where reassessment is based solely on search material found during a third-party search, proceedings must be initiated under section 153C. Reopening under section 147 was held to be without jurisdiction and quashed.
The ITAT held that when reassessment is annulled for jurisdictional defects under the faceless regime, the connected concealment penalty cannot stand.
The ITAT held that gross bank credits cannot be treated as unexplained income where evidence shows the assessee merely facilitated transactions for a third party. Only a reasonable commission was directed to be taxed.
The ruling clarifies that once a reassessment return is accepted, earlier returns lose relevance for penalty purposes. In the absence of defects in the reassessment return, penalty cannot survive.
The issue was whether penalty could be levied despite disclosure of undisclosed income during search. The Tribunal held that when the assessee explains the manner of earning income and pays due tax, no penalty is leviable.
The issue was whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied when bogus purchases are disallowed on an estimated basis. The Tribunal held that estimation does not establish concealment, making the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot survive where sales were already offered to tax and later added again under section 68. The key takeaway is that double taxation cannot result in penalty when no tax was sought to be evaded.
The Tribunal condoned a 506-day delay after accepting that the appeal was filed only when heavy penalty exposure created prosecution risk. The key takeaway is that bona fide reliance on legal advice and later developments can constitute sufficient cause for condonation.
