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 ruled that funds donated to certain political parties were routed back to the donor, lacking genuineness. Deductions under Section 80GGC were disallowed as a result.
ITAT ruled that reopening assessment under Section 147 is invalid if the filed return is ignored. The case was remitted for fresh consideration after allowing the assessee to substantiate claims under Section 54F.
The ITAT upheld the deletion of a ₹305.49 crore penalty imposed on a bank, ruling that section 115JB (MAT) does not apply to banks under the Banking Regulation Act. The decision emphasizes that penalties linked to inapplicable provisions cannot be sustained.
Cane Deveopment Council Rohana Kalan Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The appeals concern penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2010–11 and 2011–12. Four appeals filed by two assessees were heard together due to similarity in facts, with one matter treated as the lead case. The assessee challenged the penalty […]
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that penalty cannot continue after the underlying addition ceases to exist. The ruling highlights strict adherence to the principle of dependency between quantum and penalty.
ITAT clarifies that capital gains arise on the date of JDA execution, not registration, and allows reassessment if the agreement is cancelled before possession transfer.
Applying the Supreme Court’s principle, the Tribunal held that an explanation unproved but not disproved cannot attract Section 271(1)(c) penalty. It noted that the department failed to show falsity in the assessee’s claims. The takeaway is that penalty requires clear evidence of incorrect particulars, not mere inadequacy of proof.
ITAT Chennai quashed reassessment under Section 147, ruling that reopening based on a change of opinion without new material is invalid.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was invalid because the notice failed to specify whether the charge was concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The ruling confirms that ambiguity in penalty notices under section 271(1)(c) is fatal.
The Tribunal ruled that offshore supply receipts could not be taxed as the Revenue failed to establish any Permanent Establishment. It confirms that FOB-based offshore execution shields non-residents from Indian taxation.
