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 reassessment was challenged for lacking approval from the correct authority under Section 151 after three years. The Tribunal held that sanction by an incorrect authority vitiates jurisdiction, rendering the reassessment void.
The case examined penalty levied on estimated additions and statutory disallowance. The Tribunal held that neither category amounts to concealment or inaccurate particulars.
The issue was whether a penalty can survive when the notice does not specify the exact charge. The Tribunal held that a vague notice vitiates the entire penalty proceedings, even where AMT liability exists.
The issue was whether retaining both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) in the notice renders the penalty void. The Tribunal ruled that failure to strike off the inapplicable limb vitiates the proceedings. Penalties must be founded on precise allegations.
This case involved reassessment completed without serving the mandatory scrutiny notice. The Tribunal ruled that such omission is not a curable defect and invalidates the proceedings. The decision reinforces strict adherence to statutory safeguards.
While reopening of assessment was sustained due to bank deposit information, the cash addition was deleted on merits. Proper explanation of source defeats Section 69A.
The issue was whether penalty could be imposed for disallowance arising from a disclosed change in lease rent accounting. The Tribunal held that a bona fide, disclosed and debatable claim cannot attract penalty under section 271(1)(c).
The issue was whether the income-tax e-filing utility could prevent an assessee from making a lawful set-off claim. The High Court held that procedural software cannot override statutory rights and directed that such claims must be allowed.
The Tribunal clarified that confirmation of a Section 14A read with Rule 8D disallowance does not automatically justify penalty. Independent findings showing inaccurate particulars or concealment are mandatory.
Where the extent of inflated purchases cannot be quantified and is restricted to a nominal percentage, penalty provisions do not apply. The ruling reinforces the distinction between estimated additions and proven concealment.
