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...
It was held that applying Sections 69/69A read with Section 115BBE without examining penalty under Section 271AAC justified revision. The PCIT’s direction to reframe the assessment was sustained.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings fail where notices do not clearly state whether the charge is concealment or inaccurate particulars. Vague notices violate statutory requirements, leading to deletion of penalty.
The Tribunal examined disallowance of commission paid to cooperative milk unions and held that the payments were actually mandatory royalty fixed by government instructions. Since the assessee had no discretion and the recipients disclosed income, the addition was deleted.
The ITAT ruled that absence of recorded satisfaction in the assessment order bars initiation of penalty under Section 271E. Supervisory revision cannot substitute the Assessing Officer’s statutory discretion.
The Tribunal ruled that denial of Section 54F relief without proper verification was premature. The Assessing Officer must re-examine ownership and payment evidence before deciding the claim.
The Tribunal held that sanction for reopening was granted mechanically and without independent application of mind, as required under Section 151. An undated and non-speaking approval vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings.
The penalty was quashed as the Assessing Officer failed to strike off the inapplicable limb in the notice. Clear satisfaction and precise charge are mandatory for sustaining penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that when stamp duty value is disputed, the Assessing Officer must refer the matter to the DVO. Fair market value determination is mandatory before sustaining a Section 50C addition.
ITAT Mumbai held that where segmental accounts are not available, then proportionate adjustments have to be made only in respect of the international transactions with associated enterprises [AE]. Thus, TPO directed to compute the transfer pricing [TP] adjustment, restricting it to the international transactions undertaken with associated enterprises.
The Tribunal held that a penalty notice which does not specify the exact charge is invalid. Failure to strike off the irrelevant limb shows non-application of mind and vitiates penalty proceedings.
