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 Tribunal examined whether non-deduction of TDS on External Development Charges justified treating the payer as an assessee-in-default. It held that the Assessing Officer must first verify whether the payee has already paid tax, as mandated by the proviso to section 201(1).
While restoring the appeals, the ITAT directed expeditious disposal and warned against avoidable adjournments. The key takeaway is that condonation is granted to enable justice, not to prolong litigation.
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) fails where the notice alleged inaccurate particulars but the levy was based on concealment.
The Tribunal held that reassessment based only on the Shah Commission report, without independent material or application of mind, is invalid. Reopening beyond four years after full disclosure was quashed, nullifying additions and penalties.
Jaipur Tribunal observed that the son had no independent income, and the purchase was made solely from the assessee’s funds. Consequently, restriction of exemption to 50% by the CIT(A) was set aside, confirming full Section 54F relief.
The ITAT Jaipur held that joint ownership of a new property does not bar full exemption under Section 54F if the assessee funds the purchase and retains control over the asset.
The Tribunal ruled that partial disallowance of section 54F deduction, without concealment or inaccurate particulars, does not warrant penalty under section 271(1)(c).
The Tribunal upheld the addition because the assessee could not prove the creditor’s identity, financial capacity, or the genuineness of the ₹50 lakh credit. Defective confirmation, NIL income of the creditor, and absence of source details weighed against the assessee. The ruling emphasizes that Section 68 requires clear, credible evidence.
The Tribunal held that conflicting judicial views on Section 10(38) exemption made the issue debatable. Since the assessee disclosed all facts, penalty for concealment could not survive despite later denial of exemption.
ITAT held that the assessee had proved identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender through affidavits, ITR and audited accounts. Since the AO brought no contrary evidence, the Section 69A addition was deleted.
