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 ITAT held that a penalty under Section 271D cannot survive without recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer during pending assessment proceedings.
The issue was whether interest earned from a co-operative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal held that such interest is deductible, as a co-operative bank is itself a co-operative society.
Gujarat High Court held that disallowance of claim made in return cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Accordingly, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied in such case. Thus, appeal of revenue dismissed and questions of law answered in favour of assessee.
The Tribunal examined whether agricultural land qualified as a non-capital asset and upheld taxation after finding it within the prescribed municipal distance. The ruling reiterates that physical verification and reliable evidence prevail over unsupported certificates.
The issue was the validity of a penalty notice combining concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The ITAT ruled that vague notices violate natural justice and quashed the penalty.
The Tribunal observed that rejection of audited books and disallowance of labour charges must be backed by concrete defects. Purely ad-hoc estimations based on minimum wages were held improper.
The ruling clarifies that Section 153(3)(ii) operates as an exception to the normal limitation framework. When assessments are made to give effect to appellate directions involving special audits, no fixed time limit applies.
The reassessments were initiated after four years based on section 68 but concluded under section 115BBC. The ITAT held that absence of valid jurisdiction and mismatch of sections rendered the reassessments void.
The issue was whether a penalty could survive when the notice failed to specify the exact limb of section 271(1)(c). The ITAT held such ambiguity fatal, quashing the entire penalty as void.
ITAT Ahmedabad remanded a ₹2.28 crore unexplained property investment case to the AO, allowing the assessee one final opportunity to provide supporting documents, while imposing a ₹5,000 cost for non-compliance.
